Grigory Yavlinsky - Co-Founder Yabloko Party, Russia HARDtalk

Keep up-to-date online by visiting the BBC News website. Now on BBC

News, it's time for HARDtalk. So much for all the talk of a

Moscow spring. Despite sporadic street protests and the stirrings

of middle class rebellion, Vladimir Putin is backing the Crinan and

Russia's economic and political status quo remains intact. Why do

Liberal opponents of him struggle to gain traction? My guest today is

Grigory Yavlinsky, a veteran leader of Russia's fragmented opposition.

Will the Liberals ever win in Grigory Yavlinsky, welcome to

HARDtalk. Thank you. Vladimir Putin is back in the Kremlin and

announced a new cabinet that looks quite a lot like the old one,

although he is now present. We still see sporadic protests but has

anything really changed at all in Russia? But if Vladimir Putin is in

the Kremlin, this is a main sign that nothing has changed. It is the

same policies we have had for the last 12 years. I suppose the

question is whether there is something important about the scale

of the protest we saw beginning in December, after the very much

disputed elections. That signify something different about the

opposition? -- did that signify. signifiers different, not so much

for the opposition, but shows that there are a lot of people who are

dissatisfied with the policies of the Vladimir Putin and the current

government and authorities. These people are not part of the

political movement. This is a kind of preparation for the civil

movement. It is not even like a movement yet. It is a lot of young

people. Groups of people who represent middle class. And it is

also a lot of people who can hardly do find their place in the -- in

Putin's of Russia. They have no confidence in their own future.

me ask this as politely as I can. Do you believe the young people,

the protesters you talk about, are involved in a move that which is

leaving you behind? -- movement which is. Not all of them. When

they were structured politically, they would join different parts of

opposition. It is a mistake in -- in that we have the opposition and

we have Putin. We have many different groups - leftist,

communist, nationalist, fascist, Democrats, criminal opposition, are

oligarchic Opposition, liberal opposition, many. And these young

people would be fragmented in these groups. But I am struck by the rise

of the various oppositions. One man, Alexei, was part of your movement

but he left three or four years ago. He now seems to be doing things

which you have failed to do. For using the anti-corruption message

to reach out to a larger audience than you ever managed to reach.

is a member of my party. He was expelled five years ago for

nationalism. What do you mean he was expelled for nationalism?

openly expressed nationalistic ideas, that Russian nationality

must have priority in Russia, that in a different way. He was one of

the organisers of the Russian rallies. He spoke about that openly

and clearly. That is his political view. And my view and that few of

my colleagues is that nationalism, in whatever form, is extremely

dangerous for such a country like Russia. So you in the liberal

establishment feel that people like him, who have popular appeal, are

in some senses dangerously extreme? I am saying that nationalists for

Russia, as in Yugoslavia, a decade or two decades ago, are very

dangerous and we don't share that kind of view. Another story, the

internet, in virtual space, he is rather popular online. He is a

clever person. He achieved a lot in that area. But that does not mean...

It just seems to me you talk about the need to focus on traditional

politics and traditional party politics. Maybe Russia needs

something else right now. When you look at him and his anti-corruption

website, when you look at the female punk rock band who are

currently under arrest because of their protest stance in the middle

of Moscow, you look at that sort of protest idea and it seems to have

moved on from your version of Russian politics. I am not speaking

about my version of Russian politics. I am speaking about

politics and it is important, not only what we are doing today and

against what we are fighting for, more important or at least not less

important is what we are going to do after her we go to the Kremlin.

The alternative is extremely politically important. Big Bash

after we go. The people we are talking about, they are bright

young people but they are expressing their disagreement with

the current situation. But they are also expressing an exhaustion with

your view of politics. You recently said, in response to the recent

protests, did they really think, talking abo talking abootesters, they

could achieve something for a head- on collisions and civil war? You

said the opposition needs to focus on series politics, winning

elections and taking power. And yet this is the view of somebody who

has consistently fought elections, whose party gets 3% of the national

vote and to do not actually get on the list for a presidential

candidate. That is true. These people were not even prepared to do

that. If they continue the same line, they would be out of politics

forever. So inviting them into the politics, and I am ready to adjust

my politics to their views. We are ready and interested to modernise

our approach to politics. But, once again, what they are doing at the

moment is not politics. It is in the interest of the current group

of Mr Putin. He is interested that the population in Russia would be

completely depoliticised. But the flipside is that you have helped

Putin over the years by continuing with your traditional mainstream

party politics, fighting elections and fighting presidential elections.

You legitimise a system in which you can never win. Never ever, that

is an open question. I have no examples in Russia that somebody

won the elections. Maybe once it happened in the beginning of the

90s. Since then, it is a special procedure. But I am not talking

about that now. I am saying that it is absolutely necessary, if we want

to avoid a revolution. I am against the kinds of things which would

improve or implement violence in Russia. It is very important for me.

How close to real instability is Russia today, do you believe?

Russia is in a position that in two weeks, the situation could change.

Very seriously into the opposite situation. It is an illusion that

Russian politics is stable. Russian politics is stable for the moment.

But not for tomorrow and for the day after tomorrow. But what would

be the spark? An outsider would see disputes about the way in which

elections are handled but we see Putin, who still commands roughly

50% of the vote. We see security forces which seemed entirely loyal

to the system. You say within a couple of weeks things could change

but what would be the spark that could like that fire? Nobody knows.

When you have in information on that, please let me know. Nobody

knows. That is Russia. -- have any information. Nobody expected in

1985 that in five years the Soviet Union would disappear. Nobody

expected in the beginning of the century, when Russia joined the

First World First Worldt in two years the Russian empire would simply

collapse. Nobody expected that. It can happen very quickly, in a very

short period of time. In that economy a bit. You are an economist

of long-standing. He recently wrote about the s about the s if

which capitalism.

and lacking, the capitalist spirit that we saw in the West for so long.

Is it your contention that the economy in Russia is so weak that

it could undermine Putin's grip on power? It is one of the

possibilities. There is a lot of money in Russia because of the

prices on oil and other raw materials. But from the point of

view of modern economy, in terms of private property rights, which does

not exist in Russia, in terms of competition, which does not really

exist in Russia, in terms of diversified economy, doesn't exist

in Russia, from all these points of view, it is a very weak system.

yet only a few weeks ago, I spoke to one of Russia's with just an end.

He pointed out the vast potential that the Russian economy still has.

Resource potential which he says is uncapped, a vast potential to the

east, looking at export possibilities, he says there are

systemic problems and corruption but understand just how real the

potential of our economy is. We are several hundred years over the

potential. I am fed up with the potential. I want to have the real

market economy effective today. Not the potential for the future

generations. In the Communist times, they said we had potential to

create communism. At New Road the 500 day programme of reform in 1990

to change Russia from being a communist to capitalist. -- but you

wrote be. And then there was a total economic nightmare and the

rise of the exploitative oligarch. Yes. Because 500 days, that problem

was not realised. The Washington consensus was recognised instead.

The mainstream of the world economy came to Russia and created

oligarchic, so any criminal economy. -- so any criminal. That was

because of systemic mistakes. can make that argument but going

back to politics, the Russian people don't buy it. They associate

people like you, the radical liberal economic reformers, with

economic chaos. They look at Putin and the fact that even now he is

delivering 4% growth a year, unemployment that is lower than the

UK and the US, they say, "it is not great but we have got order,

stability and those are things we never had when the real Neil

Two things. Firstly, you're right. This is one of their problems. I

was strongly against the old policies. I was against that tide

of reform that we had in Russia. Nevertheless, because it was a

market reformer, because I was a supporter of integration of Russia

in Europe and in the world, because I was a supporter of private

property and competition and capitalist economies, we pulled all

those people together with no difference. This is absolutely true.

You have never been there were to escape from that. Yes, but there

was a real difficulty separating that. But I am speaking about

different things. You are not right saying that the people today are

saying that kind of stability that Vladimir Putin implemented is OK.

It was OK after the decay of your son. That was true. Now it is a

different story. Now they are saying it is almost enough. It is

too long to have the same thing for 12 years. So the main policy of

Vladimir Putin is not to allow alternatives. The problem it within

that is, what are we today calling the liberal economists, but we are

not. They were not the liberal economists. They were very close to

being, I would put it as the people who are saying that calls justified

the means. How does one go about changing the Russian economy? If we

think about the message that has been sent to Russians with the fate

of Michel quad core ski. If we think about what happened to the

loyal -- the lawyer who was trying to uncover the vast reservoir of

corruptions. He felt that in the financial affairs. Think about the

fate of these individuals. Who is going to stand up for the rule of

law foreign independent judiciary's you are right once again. From the

side of the business. They would not do that. They are afraid. They

will tell you stories about potential. That is why the

politicians like my friend and I, we do not have a high standing. It

is a difficult exercise. Try to do routine business, making profits

with no business. The businesses are afraid that it is a strategy of

the Vladimir Putin. Is it true that man was funnelling money to your

political movement? Yes, of course. So you believed you could make

common cause with big business and changed the course of Russia? Isn't

that a mixed message? You don't like their system, you don't like

that of men like that can amass fortunes worth many millions. But

you were happy to take his money. will tell you a secret. Life is

always mixed. Politics is always mixed. I was absolutely sure that

the vital interest off of all interpreters in Russia, all

business people, is to have real private property, rights, freedom

and law. That is my problem. A very simple, clear, and difficult to

implement. I am absolutely sure he was also interested in that. I

disagree with him as a representative of those circles,

but in the future, we have the same vital interests as all other people

in Russia. You talk about fear. Is there a great deal of fee in Russia

today? Among the people who have property, of course. Tell me if

this is true. I have read that in the '90s, you experience the most

extraordinary fearful moment when I believe you stop some was taken

hostage by force as we know not who they were. He had his fingers cut

off and sent to you. Is that true? Yes, it is true. But I do not use

those arguments in my political life. Why? It is not the argument.

The argument is your programme, you believe, your principles, your

character. That is the argument. Many Russian people had a lot of

the very difficult things in their lives. That was the period of time

when the war started in Russia. Maybe what you read about my family

and my son was a little bit journalistically arranged. Not

every word was close to the reality. The substance was that what you

said. But I am sure that for the real politicians, this is not a way

of making your popularity, telling terrible stories about your life.

The reason I ask is because he paid a picture of Russia potentially

very unstable. Potentially full of conflict in the future. The believe

that the sort of the new experienced, the intimidation,

could happen again? Could Russia remain a society where violence is

close to the edge? I am afraid it is possible. Almost everything is

possible in Russia. Not like in America. It is possible. It's

interesting that you say not like America. It brings me back to a big

thought about you enjoy opposition. You have written a lot about the

state of capitalism and it is fair to say that as a man who represents

the many Russians argument for Western-style liberal politicians,

capitalism in the west is looking unhealthy right now. Rye at. Isn't

that a profound problem for you? To make the case that a system which

is apparently very well built in the worst? Yes, it is one of my key

problems in Russia. Because I am trying to say that I want to create

the same system like in Europe. I have the answer from averages which

is saying, are you crazy? Look at them. I am saying I want to have

human rights in Russia. They're saying, look at Iraq? Look at

Afghanistan and? Look at the news every day. It is all the same. The

prisons in Europe. Things like that. Of the problem for Russia, one of

the problems, you were talking about the problems for Russian

opposition. There is one more problem which is that we have no

examples. The west is trying to create workable effective systems.

The Irene a position where we can't say, look at them, let us do the

same. You are described by many as the most pro-Western politician.

You believe the west has led to down? No, it is our country, it is

my country, we are doing the best for our country. We don't need the

favour. But what we really are interested in, but you must be

successful. I didn't mean let you down in the sense that you expected

more. I meant in terms of a role model. Of giving a model to rush of

what they could be. Yes, but you are doing that, not because you

want to fail. You are failing because you have problems. Your

problems are very serious. In the case of Russia, it is a kind of

extreme example of the problems now that you have. I can demonstrate to

you one by one that we have the same problems that you have, but

the scale of our problems is much larger. That is the obstacle for us.

The beginning of a new Russia started with the argument that we

can live in the same way like Europeans and Americans. And now