Her voice was still listened to, especially as she became more and more critical. Mikhail Gorbachev, who died on August 30, 2022, had experienced, as the main actor, the transformation of the USSR into Russia, before being brutally ousted. That is to say if his judgment on Vladimir Putin, on the oligarchs, on corruption and violations of human rights in his country retained a very special value in these troubled times. Withdrawn from public affairs, he kept his freedom of speech as well as a keen eye on what is happening in the heart of the Moscow nomenklatura. A lucid, implacable observation, but which did not spare Westerners. From power struggles inside the Kremlin to Arab revolutions, Gorbachev was always proudly Russian, while being as independent as he was relevant in his observation of the world. For L’Express, he agreed in 2011 to answer the big questions of the day.
The demonstrations which followed the legislative elections of last December 4 were not repressed by the authorities. Is Russia heading for a “soft dictatorship”?
The “administrative” pressure was formidable: the regime sent a circular letter to the teachers, it put pressure on businessmen, bought the votes of many retirees, in short, all resources were mobilized to ensure victory. of United Russia, Putin’s party. It’s worrying, really. Putin has work to do if he wants to change electoral practices!
What would you say to the Kremlin, to Putin and to Medvedev, after this controversial election and the serious incidents that followed?
The power must recognize that there have been many frauds, too many “arrangements”, and that the results announced do not reflect the will of the voters. More and more Russians are convinced that these results are not honest! Ignoring public opinion discredits the regime and destabilizes the country. Remaining deaf reinforces discontent… I am convinced that the Prime Minister and the President must regain the initiative to remain within the framework of a democratic process. Our leaders will soon be faced with difficult decisions. They will have to make important and inevitable changes, but they cannot do so without the participation of citizens, or against their will. These electoral lies kill trust in power. This is why it is necessary to cancel the results and announce a new poll.
Could Putin be a new Brezhnev?
But no ! For now, this comparison is unfounded. However, in the end, if Putin remains in power for too long, he could turn into a kind of Brezhnev!
Can we speak of Putin as a “modern tsar”?
Are you kidding… He might have liked to become one, but I don’t think it will come to that. Passions are boiling in Russia, and you can hear all sorts of things there. But a tsar? Nope ! In any case, we can rejoice in these passionate debates in society: there were times, like under Stalin, when no one dared to express his opinion. But, today, society is not ready to renounce the democratic achievements. She will resist.
How do you judge this game of musical chairs between Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev?
Since the country had to accept the idea of this tandem from the outset, there is no need to complain about it today. Formally, democratic rules have not been violated. But, in fact, it is an attempt to retain power. However, one cannot obtain changes (and people demand them!) without changing the leaders. Nor can changes be facilitated without injecting new forces into politics. Today, jobs can simply be bought! It is the worst variant of democracy.
If Putin is elected in March 2012, as is likely, he could run again and remain in power until 2024. Is this the future of Russia?
During his first term, Putin accumulated political successes: he preserved the unity of Russia and gave oxygen to the people. Therefore, we cannot say that it is a policy without a future. But, in the next six years, the country must democratize and modernize; if Putin does not manage to lead it on this path, the problems will be such that we can no longer resolve them peacefully. We will see if he is able to change his methods, to assimilate the lessons of the recent past.
Is he diverting the spirit of the Constitution by presenting himself a third time?
He did not violate the letter, but the spirit, as you say. It’s a good formula. Me, I had declared, a few months ago already, that it would be better to have a new president at the head of the country. This would pave the way for actors who would bring about change. The members of the governing elite are too intertwined, including with regard to their heritage. It is difficult for them to carry out real reforms. When we read articles in the opposition press on the corruption that reigns in the upper circles of power, we are left speechless! In theory, Putin could initiate the change, but I don’t believe in it.
Would you say that there is a weariness in Russia vis-à-vis Putin among the majority of the population?
No, it’s not about that. The people are afraid of losing this vital minimum and this stability that the Putin era gave them. Nevertheless, people are gradually coming to the idea of a necessary renewal.
If nothing changes between now and the March 2012 election, what would you advise Russians: to vote or to refuse to endorse a caricature of democracy?
I will go vote. And I will call on our citizens to follow my example. Because the refusal to vote contributes to abominable abuses during the counting of votes. We must control the elections without fearing the authorities. The authorities are blackmailing, on the theme: “Without Putin, there will be no social benefits, etc.” But this is not true !
Vote for who? Who is your presidential candidate?
Alas! The choice is not very large…
Recently, Putin accused you of giving up the USSR too easily, in 1991, of giving up power.
Putin must try to really understand what happened. He may then arrive at very different conclusions. In any case, I do not accept his accusations. They are baseless.
In an interview, Putin said that the USSR was “Great Russia”. Do you agree ?
Yes. I have said the same thing a hundred times. But this Great Russia should have had an internal organization which takes into account all the national particularities, which allows this immense multi-ethnic world to function successfully, which allows the principles of democracy and freedom to be respected. And it was possible. We were working in this direction. In 1991, the new treaty of the Union was ready: it gave the right to the Republics (as it was moreover indicated in the Constitution) to be free and sovereign within a confederation. Alas! the putsch of August 1991 prevented the signing of this treaty, with the consequences that we know.
For Putin, the disappearance of the USSR was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century”. Do you regret the Soviet Union?
Yes ! I’ve said it so many times before. And the polls show that I am not the only one: a very large part of my fellow citizens agree with me. But when they are asked the question: “Do you want the restoration of the USSR?”, only 9% are in favor… What does that mean? Former Soviets now live in independent states, and although the lack of a common economic space makes their lives harder, they value their respective countries’ sovereignty, freedoms and newly acquired rights. It is important to understand. Therefore, I support economic integration in the post-Soviet space in the first place.
For successful integration, Ukraine is very important. What do you think of President Yanukovych? Do you believe a new economic space is possible?
When Kuchma was president, the rapprochement between Russia and Ukraine had begun, and more than 70 common laws had been passed. With President Yushchenko, this process was frozen. As for Yanukovych, he surprises me. When he fought for power, he spoke of a closer union with Russia. But as soon as he became president – and people voted for him because they want to strengthen ties with Russia – his narrative changed. However, even without Ukraine, a common economic space is forming between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Other states wish to join at a later stage. This is the right way.
We will celebrate at the end of December the 20th anniversary of the break-up of the USSR. Looking back, what was your main failure?
I was late in accelerating the democratization of the Soviet Union, late in reforming the Communist Party, which took the lead in the fight against perestroika. We had decided, with the leaders of the Republics, to transform the USSR into a community of sovereign states, and that is what should have been done, but we have fallen behind in this overhaul of the USSR.
And what was your main success? What will remain of the Gorbachev era in terms of history?
In the USSR, we triggered democratization: freedom of worship, freedom of speech, political pluralism, freedom of enterprise gradually leading to the market economy. That’s already a lot, isn’t it? On the international scene, we have reduced the atomic threat by reducing nuclear armaments.
Vladimir Putin is worried about the installation of an anti-missile system in Europe. He has hardened his position and affirms to the Americans that he could go back on his disarmament commitments. Is this a real concern or an election campaign argument?
There is a bit of both. In any case, it’s a good way to push your partner to deeper discussion and compromise. Nothing serious is happening. In my time, I had situations of this kind: one day, the American president warned me that he was on an election campaign and could say things that should not be reacted to, because it was not nothing of a real change in its foreign policy.
Do you think democracy is possible in Russia?
If I had the conviction that the Russian people were incapable of living in a democracy, I would never have launched perestroika. I would have governed according to the old rules and would have entered into competition with Kadhafi!
Will we ever know the truth about the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya?
I hope. Putin said that Politkovskaya was not an important personality and did not have much merit. I totally disagree with him.
How is it that the Russian justice did not find the sponsors?
This means that the Russian regime is weak, that perhaps it had no interest in looking. In any case, when the truth is known, it risks being very unpleasant.
One of the major events of this year is the Arab Spring. How do you assess the Islamist risk?
If there is a negative turn, it will be linked not to democracy, but to the lack of democracy. These countries had begun a progressive, democratic transformation of their societies, but they did not pursue this path and turned into dictatorial regimes ruled by clans. I am very happy that the peoples of several Arab countries have publicly demanded respect for their rights. And that all attempts to sideline the people and continue the shenanigans in the interests of a very narrow circle of people have failed. As far as Syria is concerned, I hope that we will avoid a war. “Strong” military action will not solve the problem. War is always a failure of politics.
Was NATO’s intervention a good decision?
The terrible repression of demonstrators by Colonel Gaddafi made military strikes necessary. It was a case of force majeure. But I wouldn’t recommend this as an effective solution for the future. Following the bombardments affecting the civilian population and the fighting, there was massive destruction and numerous victims in Libya. Political solutions must always be preferred. Europe is expected to act democratically and to use political and economic levers, to adopt sanctions, for example.
In Syria, we deplore more than 4,000 dead. However, the opposition of the Russians and the Chinese prevents the vote of sanctions against Damascus…
The situation there is terrible and we can only regret the massacres. But I believe there is more wisdom and caution in the Russian and Chinese proposals. It is not a question of justifying the actions of the Syrian regime, but of finding a negotiated solution. The best instrument for this is the UN Security Council: it can decide on sanctions, of course, but it also has the authority to negotiate with Damascus.
Should the Syrian president leave?
It’s not about ousting Bashar al-Assad or crushing the Syrian regime. Such steps would require further NATO intervention. It’s enough ! Let’s be careful.
Can the Arab Spring make a splash in Russia?
It is very important that we learn from what is happening in the Arab world. But we have enough sources of inspiration inside Russia. I find it hard to imagine that there could be a Syrian or Libyan type revolt in Russia.
The year 2012 is one of all uncertainties, with presidential elections in the United States, France, Mexico, Russia, as well as the arrival of a new team in China. A crucial year for Europe. How do you see the future in such a troubled world?
I’m not panicking! And I hope no one panics! What is happening is not so worrying. It is only a difficult transition phase that accompanies the passage from the “old world” to the new world, global and interconnected. The old walls are crumbling, but this is ultimately a salutary process.
Mikhail Gorbachev in 10 dates
March 2, 1931 Born in Privolnoïe.
1952 Joins the CPSU.
1971 Elected to the Central Committee of the CPSU, at age 40.
1980 Elected to the Politburo, supreme body.
1985 Secretary General of the Politburo, he establishes perestroika.
1987 Man of the Year in Time.
1988 He decides to withdraw Soviet troops from Afghanistan.
1990 Nobel Peace Prize.
August 1991 Conservative coup. Boris Yeltsin is the beneficiary.
December 25, 1991 He resigns from the presidency of the USSR.
