His voice is still very listened to, especially as it is becoming more and more critical. Mikhail Gorbachev lived, as a 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 retains a very special value in these troubled times. Withdrawn from public affairs, he retains his freedom of speech as well as a keen eye on what is happening at the heart of the Moscow nomenklatura.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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
Alas! The choice is not very large…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I hope. Putin said that Politkovskaya was not an important personality and did not have much merit. I totally disagree with him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
