We have had a new government for over a year. Now it is time to evaluate its performance. It is time to say what kind of government it is and where it is leading us. Public support is certainly a strong point for any government, and our current government enjoys such backing.

The current government is conducting a dialogue with almost all the political forces in Russia. This is a novelty in the Russian Federation. However, it is good to conduct a dialogue if you have a distinct programme. But it is extremely difficult to conduct such a dialogue when the government does not have such a programme. This is a weakness of the current government. I am one of those politicians who believes that the government is weak and not strong.

Another weakness of the government is the nebulosity of its decisions: the decisions are elaborated, discussed, declared, but subsequently vanish into thin air. Sometimes they are even transformed into their opposites.

This is the dominating trend of the current government. I would call this trend a policy aimed at establishing a corporate police state.

The first sign of this policy concerns it absolute aversion to criticism. The second sign concerns the attempt to gain control of the media. I won't comment on this item, since this trend is obvious. It recently started with respect to one leading TV company, but is gradually spreading to other media.

Another sign concerns the attempt to obtain control of political parties. The most vivid illustration of this statement is the draft law submitted by the president to the Duma. The bill envisages effective instruments of the government's interference in the internal life of parties.

The government has successfully gained control of the Russian Parliament and made it a machine for seconding the president's decisions. This control was gained not only because the pro-president party won the parliamentary election in 1999, but also because it concluded a bargain with the Communists, leading to the distribution of key positions in the Duma between the Communists and Unity. Thus, the government obtained an overwhelming majority in the Duma, and sometimes this majority is aggressive.

A new method of the new government involves imitation of civilian institutes. Since the Union of Journalists does not appeal to the government with its constant criticism of the government's actions regarding NTV, the government has decided to set up an organisation called the Guild of Unions.

The same situation is affecting elections in virtually all regions and most political organistions. This means that the government is establishing a corporate state in Russia.

What is a corporate state? I would propose the following definition: a modern corporate state is a state that does not destroy democratic institutes, but adapts them to its needs. It makes them branches of a closed political system with a strict discipline. This discipline does not tolerate any attempts on criticism within the system and any deviation beyond its borders.

This state gradually becomes a state of the absolute, total control of its officials over citizens. Such a state may be defined as a police state. This state is uncontrollable, since any attempt to combat this system simply leads to the appointment of new officials. The state is not controlled by civilian institutes or citizens: it is controlled by state officials appointed by another state officials. In this case the dictatorship of law declared by Putin a year ago is to be transformed into the terror of law. A system of selective appliance of law is formed. Unwelcome people are persecuted by legal means.

The outcome of this policy may only be deplorable politically. It will lead to growth in corruption, monopolist trends both in the economy and in politics, a reduction in people's business activity, and total intimidation of the population.

Here I would like to point out that the Yabloko party advocates systematic democratic opposition to the policy of establishing a corporate police state. We aim to prevent this trend from permeating all spheres of life. At the same time we have announced that currently we are conducting a dialogue with the government and the president. We are openly telling the government about our fears and anxieties.

Now I would like to explain what it means to conduct an open dialogue. First of all, we believe that it is necessary to publicise this dialogue. Secondly, we reserve the say everything that we think that we should say. It would be fair to state that this dialogue sometimes has some constructive results. One of them is related to the fact that the Duma has adopted a single personal income tax of 13%. We have been fighting for this tax for ten years, but previous governments told us that this was absolutely impossible. We were told that a single rate of personal income tax would mean that people could be rich in Russia. We are also satisfied with the fact that a regressive tax rate has been introduced for the social tax. This means that an employer will be able to pay a larger salary and a smaller tax, although the treasury will get more all the same. There have been a few positive economic decisions, including the decision over land ownership that was made already.

Recently, another important event took place. Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev gave NATO General Secretary George Robertson a package of proposals concerning a Russian-European non-strategic anti- ballistic system. We initiated this proposal back in 1998. This represents an actual step toward constructive partnership, which is the successor to futile talks about NATO's expansion to the East and other such issues. Russia borders on the most unstable regions of the world and has the longest borders with them. From now on we will be able to redirect the entire military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation, the General Staff, the Defense Ministry, and the Armed Forces. The government will finally give these structures a strategy actually aimed at maintaining the world security system. I came up with this proposal at meetings with Vladimir Putin in September 1999 and Boris Yeltsin in February 1998. Although the specific content of this project has still not been revealed, most importantly it has been announced politically.

Here I would like to note the assertions of some media that the matter concerns an alternative to the US' anti-ballistic system are wrong. Europe will always stick to its Atlantic duties, and Russia will always be an outsider, if it tries to embroil Europe with America. Besides, Bush recently commissioned his representatives to Russia to place some orders at enterprises of the Russian military- industrial complex. This means not only that Russian territory will be used to build the European anti- ballistic system, but also that Russia's intellectual potential and military-industrial complex will be involved in the process.

Now let me turn to our political positions. Firstly, we are a party oriented to Europe. We want Russia to become a European country in 20-25 years. We don't want it to become just like France or Germany or the UK. We want it to remain Russia, but at the same time we want Russia to play its traditional historic role, which entails involvement of the whole of Eurasia in the stream of the European civilization. The government's current prime task is to preserve Russia as part of European civilization. The greatest problems start when Russia begins to rush between Europe and Asia.

It is important for us to tell people that we don't want to build some chimeras such as communism in Russia. We want Russia to advance along the path of economic prosperity and enrich Europe's culture with its own culture and national traditions.

We are also convinced that only a liberal economy will be effective in this area. This means an economy with low taxes and few restrictions. This economy is based on fair competition, and in such circumstances every person has a right to and is able to start his/her own business.

From the economic viewpoint, modern Russia is a person holding an oil pipe in one hand and a gas pipe in the other. He is a fuel addict having all sorts of possible economic hallucinations. But if fuel prices decline (and they are bound to decline some day), this person will suffer greatly. This situation principally differs from what is called a liberal economy, and I don't see anyone in the government ready to handle this problem.

Yabloko's political programme is based on the first and second chapters of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. These chapters resemble Thomas More's "Utopia" compared to the current situation in Russia. For instance, Chapter One says: "A human, his rights, and his freedoms are the highest values."

I will never agree with those who say that protection of human rights differs from politics. All rules should aim to protect the rights and freedoms of a citizen. I am sure that the Russian economy will never start working until this aim is achieved. This serves as the basis for our political programme.

There are several urgent tasks facing Russia. We cannot put an end to the construction of a police state in Russia until the war in Chechnya is discontinued. The country is tired of its victims. Viewing the tasks of the so-called anti-terrorist operation started a year and a half ago, we can see that they have not been fulfilled and will hardly ever be achieved using such methods. We continue to lose our children, our soldiers and officers.

Only properly organised civilian structures may resist the trend of building a police state. We understand that this is an enormous task. We have started preparations for the establishment of permanent Democratic Conferences in Russia. We intend to set up a body that will elaborate useful viewpoint. We intend to open the first session of this conference in May 2001.

Question: Do you really think that your ideas can be implemented not only in general but also in Russia in particular?

Yavlinsky: Yes, I really think these ideas can be implemented in Russia.

To achieve some improvements, we need to move steadily, step by step, towards a democratisation of the country. Why have Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary overcome the crises? Why have Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus failed? This happened, because democratic revolutions took place in 1989-1990 in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, which led to the emergence of quite new political elite in power. Meanwhile Russia is ruled by the same people. They used young and talented reformers as a decor that has cost the country $50 billion in debts. Over the past 10 years there have been seven or eight prime ministers in Russia: all of them are either former members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, or representatives of the law enforcement agencies or special services. Only Sergei Kirienko wasn't, although he used to be a Komsomol leader. However, the results of his premiership are well known. The country has entered a different dimension, but people remain the same. The collision of new and old realities has led to two wars, one of which is still going on; two defaults; a period of hyperinflation (2,500%); and nearly the beginning of a civil war in 1993. We need different people to come to power, and this process is happening now.

Novye Izvestia, February 24, 2001, pp. 1, 4