Kasparov: Good day, it is almost five months since the time of our first press conference where Committee-2008 declared its formation, that was on January 19. In general, five months is not a very long time for a political organization. But these are very fast moving times and the number of events per unit of time is going off scale in Russia and in the rest of the world. During this time, in addition to the main political news, the presidential election whose outcome was a foregone conclusion, nothing much seems to have happened in Russia. Well, a new government has been appointed. But during this time the Committee has lived through several transformation periods, as the tasks that we initially set were not very concrete and rather vague, but now they are taking a more concrete shape. Yesterday the committee approved its Charter as a regional non-governmental organization and determined its tasks which we would like to discuss today. The main proof that the Committee is viable was the fact that it is emerging as a forum for dialogue among the most diverse forces of the liberal democratic wing in Russia. The fact that the Committee has been joined by Sergei Ivanenko, Irina Khakamada, Vladimir Ryzhkov shows that a nucleus of a potential association is emerging. We are well aware of how difficult it is and the still very tentative statement that the Committee is distributing today is an invitation to more concrete discussions. Thank God, we still have time. There will be no elections in Russia before 2007 although you can never tell -- changes of the Constitution and all the Russian legislation are fickle and they do not depend on political expediency, but on the wishes of the Russian leadership. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that it will be prepared for every kind of surprise and will be able to resolve the problem of uniting the democratic forces which has been on hold for many years. This is the main outcome of the five-month existence of our Committee. At the same time we did a lot of other things. We are trying to promptly and adequately react to developments. The Committee has issued several statements connected with the events in Russia, for example, with the presidential elections and the jury verdict on the Sutyagin case. And today, along with the proposal of the Committee to unite the democratic forces and to hold primaries, to use an American word, the Committee is distributing its statement on Chechnya which we believe to be very important because today to see Chechnya as just another tragic event – you know that today 11 more Russian servicemen died despite President Putin's loud statements to the effect that things in Chechnya are under control. Well, the Committee believes that Chechnya should be seen as the trigger of all the events that have happened in Russia since 1999. In fact, Chechnya was the start of a chain of events that led to the liquidation of free television, the introduction of censorship, the arbitrary actions of the special services and of the army command. In fact, Chechnya is the focus of all the problems that beset Russia under Putin. So the Committee attaches great significance to disseminating its position on Chechnya as widely as possible so that the discussion on Chechnya and related issues does not die down in spite of the obvious attempts of the authorities to drop the word Chechnya from our political vocabulary. Of course, I repeat, five months is not a very long time, but the Committee has accomplished a great deal. And most importantly, today we are presenting ourselves to this press conference as a renewed and expanded body. The Committee has 27 members in spite of the tough admission rules, two-thirds of the total list. Today the Committee is a varicolored political organization of the democratic persuasion. I would like to stop here because I hope you have questions which we will try to answer in any case. There are three documents: elections of the Committee leadership under the new charter, a document on Chechnya and the proposal on creating a coalition of democratic forces.

Nemtsov: Have the documents been distributed? Let me just say a couple of words. A meeting of the Committee ended late at night yesterday and the meeting passed three decisions. The first decision has to do with personnel. The new leadership of the Committee has been elected. Garry Kasparov has been chosen as the chairman of the Committee. The members of the Committee Council are Sergei Ivanenko, Irina Khakamada, Sergei Parkhomenko who is modestly sitting in the hall, and an equally modest Viktor Shenderovich, Irina Yasina who is celebrating her birthday today, Vladimir Ryzhkov and yours truly. That was the first decision. The second decision was a statement on Chechnya. This is probably the toughest and clearest statement on Chechnya issued by any political organization in Russia. And the third decision which is also one of principle, is the proposal to create a future coalition. You are supposed to have all the documents and I am not going to dwell on the text.

Moderator: Your questions, please.

Q: You mentioned an opinion poll. Could you please explain what kind of a new approach is this?

Khakamada: The new approach is that in the future election bloc, no matter what changes are planned for legislation, we will change the configuration, depending on what our obedient parliament adopts. There are lots of rumors. Anyway, the new approach is that if the proportionate system is retained, if party lists are proposed, the top three and the following places on the list will be determined not on the basis of talks between various political, democratic leaders, but the people will decide. That is in various forms -- we have to agree on that yet -- we will study the opinion of the electorate in advance to find out which of the democratic leaders they find more worthy to top the party list and those in the second and third cells.

Q: A question for Sergei Viktorovich. Am I to imply from your presence here on the committee that Yabloko’s leadership has backed your decision to you? Or is it your personal feeling? We all know that relations between some of the SPS leaders and Yabloko were tense. Could you comment?

Ivanenko: First, I will be immodest and say that I am also part of the Yabloko leadership. Second, in line with the committee rules, members are adopted not on a party basis and this was fixed in the founding documents. I joined the Committee 2008 as an individual, as a democratic and liberal politician adhering to those ideas during the past years. Naturally, I see myself as a party member and certainly I discuss those issues with my colleagues and the party leader, Grigory Yavlinsky. So it is obvious that what is being done here is done with account of the opinion of our colleagues at Yabloko.

Q: After Khodorkovsky's letter and exchanges of letters, including that by Boris Abramovich Berezovsky and discussion of that letter by the SPS political council, is it possible to say that the formation of Committee 2008 is a sort of a result of those debates on the fate of liberalism? Did the democratic movement take part in the debate?

Nemtsov: You know, the committee proved a unique organization simply in the fact that its ranks include people representing virtually all important democratic organizations of the country. All of them. Few people believed at the end of last year, after a defeat during the parliamentary election, when we decided to form a committee, that it was possible. I see this as a big success. It is also an equally big success that we managed to move far ahead towards the creation of a coalition and the document distributed to you today, if you read it attentively, I think it will surprise you. I am certainly cautiously optimistic about its prospects, but still the fact that it has been adopted is quite promising. As for Khodorkovsky, we really discussed the issue at the Committee, and it is an important issue, a systematic issue, an issue related to the construction of a country of corrupt state capitalism, known attitude of the authorities and business, not only big business, but also smaller and mid-sized business. Still, I have to tell you that the issue as such certainly has not promoted or slowed down the formation of the committee. It is just one of our goals: defending the interests of civil society, including the interests of business people. But Khodorkovsky's letter certainly has not influenced out comrades' decision to join the committee or its leadership.

Q: So the crisis has been overcome?

Nemtsov: We have spoken about joining forces for ten years. I have become very cautious now. So for ten years we said: Look we have gathered all together, sitting at one table, and we may soon sign something. Now and then we even signed something. But it turned out later that it was a figleaf of Russian democratic union. So I will be cautious. I believe that there is a crisis of all political organizations in the country. There is no crisis in the Kremlin only, as they think. Still, we fully realize that we are responsible for the fate of freedom and people's power in Russia and particularly this made us come together now. I believe that this is a certain symptom of recovery. Saying that the democratic movement has fully recovered would be wrong, I think.

Kasparov: Let me add something. The results of the December election, the crush of liberal forces have had a sobering effect. But they have also led to a certain spontaneous movement, the initiative of the masses, as they used to say in the past. Several events happened which led to the formation of the committee. That was an absolutely spontaneous process and a configuration could be different. But this process advanced very rapidly. By the way, we have felt this, we felt that the committee's expansion, new members joining it, those willing to work -- this very floor emerged under the impact of certain political requirements. Actually, when we felt this, we decided that the committee could assume an ambitious objective -- I realize that those ten years of inability to unite, perhaps I am lucky that I am the only one who did not take part in those internal clashes in the past -- but today, when the negotiating potential inside the Garden Ring was exhausted, it became clear that the only way to really to this is to appeal to the electorate. Not just to hear their opinions, but also to revitalize energy levels, because one of the main problems of liberal forces – primarily the SPS and Yabloko -- was that many electors just stayed at home. They did not see it as their business. We believe that opinion polls -- we have yet to decide on the form of those polls through consultations -- but those polls which will attract hundreds of thousands of people, should encourage them, people should come to realize that this is not just that some parties resolve their problems in Moscow, that they are not just public associations, that is it a new political bloc, an organization properly representing their interests and there is a feedback, because it will be formed on the basis of opinions flatly expressed by the electorate.

Q: What if you do not feel any feedback? What will happen to your association?

Kasparov: We believe that we will feel it by definition. We believe that there are many millions of people in Russia who are not indifferent to the kind of country they live in. And if questions are properly formulated -- I repeat, I would rather not rush to conclusions about how it will look, it will be a result of very complex future consultations. People will certainly voice their views and this will determine a further configuration of this political organization.

Q: Everyone complains about financial problems today. Opinion polls are a costly thing. What money will you use?

Nemtsov: As I am responsible for financial issues on the committee, I will tell you. First, we have such an anti-monopoly rule. We have lots of small sponsors. That was the principled position of all members. We resolutely oppose the very idea of having the committee privatized by any group, and members of the committee contribute as much to the budget as they can. So, as the current budget of the committee is concerned, including the money for elucidating work, we have it. By the way, it's not so much money. I don't want to burden you with figures for the time being, but I just want to tell you that we have the money. Now, you are absolutely right. It costs a lot of money to hold primaries. According to our estimates, it will take several million dollars just to explain to people the criteria for selecting candidates because it will be necessary to use federal television channels, I mean state-run television channels, that are unlikely -- and you can see how actively they are covering this press conference -- to promote for free the idea of creating a broad-based democratic coalition. So, we will have to pay. And that will take at least several million dollars. On the other hand, it's a price that is worth paying for having in Russia representatives of those 20 million citizens for whom freedom is not an empty sound. According to all polls, 20 million people want to live in free Russia. This is why Irina Khakamada is creating a party. Twenty million people. I think it's worth finding money for the sake of this goal. One last point. Business, and I will not try to make a secret out of this, is quite pessimistic about developments on the democratic front. And this is one of the main reasons why all democratic parties are experiencing serious financial problems. At the same time, the adoption of today's document, which has been handed out to you, I think will send a signal to many far-sighted people that not everything is lost. And if Russian business feels that it's not a declaration but a real process that may lead to the creation of a strong faction in the Duma, something like 100 people, it will be much easier to find money that it is now in order to support the parties.

Q: Why is Ryzhkov not here today?

Kasparov: I think he is on a plane bound for Washington to attend a two-day conference. It was scheduled earlier. It's very hard to reconcile our schedules because everyone moves around. A meeting took place on the 17th, and a press conference on the 18th. If it were held in two days, I would not be here.

Nemtsov: You would be in Washington as well.

Kasparov: I'd say in New-York. So, it is for this reason that it is hard to get everyone together. But yesterday we held a general meeting, and Vladimir Ryzhkov was there. But he apologized for not being able to attend this event because he had to leave in the morning for two days. But he participated yesterday in the elaboration and discussion of this document. Moreover, one more document is being prepared, it's a political platform of this consolidation, and Ryzhkov is in charge of this group.

Q: I have a question about your proposal to create a coalition. You have got rid of the problem of leadership so that it doesn't obstruct your efforts to create a coalition. Is there anything else you may need to build a coalition and fulfill your main goal of winning, especially in the parliamentary elections? Or, will this be the next step?

Kasparov: I think everything should be done gradually, with due account of years of negative attempts to consolidate. It would be necessary to find a mutually acceptable form of such a poll because if a document is rejected by one side, it will become senseless. We are not all in United Russia and we have to look for different forms of compromise. We believe that this document provides the basis for finding such a compromise in the near future so that we could begin more detailed consultations on concrete polls. Conducting the polls is not just a financial problem but it is also a question of choosing a new structure for Russia. It is totally new for Russia. There is nothing like it in this country. We will have to start from scratch, feeling our way. It is also important that all potential members of the coalition, all participants in this process are ready -- agree that the results of this poll will be final in determining the democratic list.

Ivanenko: In order to win elections, it is necessary to do everything. We are taking one step at a time. I don't know how many steps have to be taken to create a coalition before the election campaign begins and before we can start fighting for voters. It may be two dozen or five steps. It doesn't matter. We have only taken the first step. I want to speak about the essence of the step we have taken. We have named five political forces and five names that -- we certainly talked to all of them, and they welcome the idea of a) creating a coalition, and b) creating a coalition on the basis of preliminary vote. This is a very important stage. As to what is going to happen next will largely depend on the good will, on external circumstances, and internal problems. But this is what we did today. As for a victory in elections, I would propose the following as the first task for this coalition: ensure the presence of five observers at each polling station, bring together about 500,000 people in Russia, preferably with videos and cameras, whoever has them. This is the first task to be fulfilled by the coalition because the words said by our "classic", "no matter who wins, what matters is who thinks what", still apply to our elections, unfortunately. I am sorry, it's "no matter how they vote, what matters is who will count their votes." It is only natural that the creation of such a powerful structure presupposes the consolidation of different organizations.And this is a vivid example of what we need a coalition for.

Q: I have two questions. First, do you know how many members are there in the committee across the country, hundreds or thousands? And second, do you feel any interference from the authorities in your work?

Kasparov: The committee has a two-tier structure. There are members of the committee, there are 27 of them. They are admitted by secret ballot, by two-thirds of all listed members. And there are also committee supporters. I don't know how many of them there are at the moment --

Nemtsov: Parkhomenko does.

Kasparov: Maybe there are already thousands of them. These people sign the declaration that is available on the website of the committee.

Parkhomenko: About 1,000 have expressed their desire to send in their contact information and signatures.

Kasparov: A certain number of people, a thousand people have sent in their contact information and they are ready to assist us in every possible way. The committee has decided not to create regional organizations for the time being even though we received a lot of requests from different Russian cities. It is encouraging, of course, but we wouldn't like to assume such responsibility now that we are only creating our organization. But there were many proposals to start creating regional organizations. However, the committee thought it had no right to assume such responsibility. In addition, one of the major items on the committee's agenda is to make trips to Russian regions and major cities. One such trip was made by Parkhomenko and Shenderovich to Yekaterinburg --

Nemtsov: To Nizhny Novgorod.

Kasparov: To Nizhny Novgorod, right. When did you go there? When are you going now?

Nemtsov: We will go to Tomsk with Shenderovich.

Kasparov: Nemtsov and Shenderovich will be traveling to Tomsk. I myself have been in St. Petersburg. And we have received a series of invitations. We will send members of the committee to the cities from which we have received such invitations as the situation allows. Of course, making our Internet site more active is also on the agenda, but you see, it was only yesterday that the Charter was approved and we can now seek registration of our organization. You understand that many things are physically impossible until your organization has been registered. I think it will be done within the next two or three months and that by fall we will be able to report on the real, well-organized work by the Committee.

Q: Radio Liberty. Do you take into account the fact that the institution of elections is being curtailed? For instance, the recent municipal elections in Moscow, the by-elections, saw 95 percent of opposition candidates struck off the list, only United Russia took part. And secondly, are you going to use any regional campaigns as primaries?

Ivanenko: That is a good observation. In addition to the disenchantment of citizens in the institution of elections which is manifested in the low turnout at the municipal elections, we witness direct administrative pressure. This is a fact. Our position is that of course, one can lament this development, but we should create a structure that is strong enough to counteract it politically. A coalition of democratic forces is, we believe, capable of preventing our candidates from being struck off the roster, as happened in Yekaterinburg, and as happened in the Moscow in municipal elections. In order to talk with our authorities you must be strong. This is what we are trying to be.

Q: The newspaper Kuranty. There is a sense that new faces are needed to win an election, rather than a new structure. Only Garry Kasparov fits that bill. Ivanenko: A comment from Garry Kasparov.

Kasparov: Well, we believe that the prime issue today is to rescue the very institution of elections. Many factors contributed to the current situation when the executive branch controls everything in the country, not least the sky-high oil prices that have created an illusion of stability in the country. On the other hand it seems to me that the democratic camp has been torn apart by internal contradictions that dampened the interest of electors who supported us in elections and undermined their hopes that these parties were fit to represent the interests of the broad social strata. Boris has mentioned that according to opinion polls about 20 million people would still like to live in a truly free country. So, unification itself can dramatically increase our rating in the future elections. As for new faces, I hope that my participation will be of some help in this process. I have always felt that I should be involved if I can make a difference. In 1993 or 1996 it would have been a passive involvement, I backed Russia's Democratic Choice and I backed Yeltsin in 1996. But now I felt that I could become directly involved as an agent in this process. I think it is important to achieve unification drawing on the negative experience, because a negative result is a result nonetheless, the experience accumulated in recent years in order to create a strong association. As Sergei Ivanenko has rightly pointed out, the authorities respect nothing but force and this administration does not understand any other arguments because of its mentality. So, it seems to me that an association, even if it does not have all that many new faces, unification in itself may jolt millions of our potential supporter out of their apathy.

Ivanenko: Could I say a couple of words as a person not mentioned in the list. I would like to say that we welcome new faces. We very warmly welcome them. But this is not an end in itself because the newest and unknown faces are in United Russia. The whole party consists of absolutely new faces. This is not the main objective. Of course, politics implies a certain recognition factor. If people come to us from different spheres, like Garry Kasparov, well-known people who want to be actively engaged in politics, we would welcome it. But, sorry, we only have the people that we have.

Kasparov: In general, I think United Russia has a complete rotation of membership every four years.

Khakamada: I would like to say the following. In spite of our facetious remarks, the situation in Russia is getting very serious. All the leaked reports from the Kremlin about changing electoral law indicate that the authorities are preparing something that would require total destruction of any centers, even if they are in the minority, of any centers of independent political influence in future power structures or on the eve of elections. Nobody knows what these changes are going to be, but even after the defeat of the SPS and Yabloko changes in legislation are proposed to preven even these old and largely forgotten faces from moving forward. It means that free people are seen as posing a threat. So new people, with politics as such stamped out in Russia because the only source of politics is the Kremlin, new people, young people, if they don't gain experience of resistance will be unable to resist the system altogether. So, all the new faces that you will see now, independently of old democrats, those who stage rallies to propose Putin for a third term; those who are forming the new right who are patriots as distinct from non-patriots – all these people have been fostered by the Kremlin. And the idea that those who know how to resist and have experience of political struggle, the old democrats who have lost are a spent force and nobody needs them, this idea is being circulated through corresponding media in order to discredit democracy as such. So we must turn this page. Given such a balance of forces and such pressure from the authorities that stamp out everything around them despite the disastrous results of their policy -- this is witnessed by Chechnya, the assassination of Kadyrov and the referendum and the presidential election in Chechnya -- this speaks volumes not only about Chechnya, but about federal policy: it is only in Russia that the people are still patient, but because Chechnya is a "hot spot" the people there have run out of patience because there they are simply killed. That is your "vertical power structure." And instead of changing in response to what is happening in Chechnya a different mechanism is being worked out: if there are still any vestiges of resistance we will do them in. So, all the talk about new faces boils down to this, that everyone who can fight and has the courage and the strength to live in Russia and not to flee, to resist this machine, all these people are dubbed "old faces" just in case.

Kasparov: By the way, it should be pointed out that all these attempts of the Kremlin, all this talk about raising the minimum percentage of the vote to 7 percent or 8 percent is obviously spearheaded against the democratic part of the political spectrum. As the recent elections have shown, Russia still has a potential swing vote that can deliver, with the help of television, some 10 percent to Rogozin-Glazyev association. So, 8 percent or 9 percent is a problem precisely for the democratic camp. If the Kremlin really followed Putin's declaration that it would be nice to have both the right-wing and the liberal forces, there would be no need for this discussion. But judging from the Kremlin's recent actions, it thinks that there should be no people in the parliament who can pronounce the words Chechnya or Khodorkovsky smoothly, there must be no people like that at the parliament at all. There should only be United Russia plus Rogozin-type patriots who will do exactly as they are told, sometimes pretending to be in opposition. This is why we think that all these steps that have been run into the ground by the press will aim to make sure that there are no such people in parliament because even a small active faction in parliament like the SPS and Yabloko could create a lot of inconvenience. Current political scientists and puppet masters at the Kremlin do not want to deal with this because -- they are already discussing a question of liquidating single-mandate constituencies in order to minimize the number of buttons to be pressed so that they could press several of them with one hand at the same time.

Khakamada: I can give you a forecast. If you want to know what the entry barrier for parties will be set by the presidential administration in 2007 -- just see how the policy of the party of power will be increasingly unpopular because it will keep on taking more and more unpopular measures as it is incapable of resolving social problems in any other way, but the popularity of democrats, who are not responsible for any of this today but who are beginning to pool their ranks, will grow. As soon as the percentage begins to grow due to the unpopular policy of the Kremlin, due to all these assassinations and terrorist acts, you will see that the Kremlin will come up with higher and higher figures. If the rating of our coalition if 8-10 percent, you will see that the administration will propose that United Russia legislatively approve a barrier of 12 percent, and so on. In other words, it's a fight not for a normal country but for the suppression of dissidence.

Q: But a 8-10 percent rating for united democrats is not a victory in elections. Can you name any ideologically acceptable counter-coalitions on the far right or on the far left side of the spectrum? Can there be a coalition with the communists? They are seriously considering creating a united coalition of civil society against the party of power. Are you ready for such consolidation or not?

Kasparov: The answer is no, of course. We certainly will enter into tactical alliances with communists in order to contest the results of elections, file lawsuits or solve short-term problems, but a democratic coalition can have nothing in common with the communists' program of action and their ideology. As are talking about the consolidation of democratic forces. I know how you define the right and the left because in Russia all these notions are quite relative compared to the traditional political science scale adopted in the West. As you can see, there are different trends because organizations get divided along certain lines. But I believe that the Yabloko leadership has its own views on many problems. We are now trying to find the basis for consolidation based on a positive program. Yesterday Vladimir Ryzhkov presented the first sketch of 13 or 14 points that should be ready as a memorandum in October this year. We seriously want not only to present the old figures as new actors or a consolidation mechanism but we also want to present a real program of action. Irina is right, this is a unique situation. The economic and political situation in Russia will most likely continue to deteriorate throughout this period till the year 2007, and no democrats will bear responsibility for that. The Gaidar-Chubais myth, this figure of speech that was constantly used is vanishing from the political arena for the first time in the history of free Russia. And now anything that may happen will be the doing of Putin, United Russia and all those new prime ministers Putin may appoint in the next three years, if the situation deteriorates. This favorable political situation gives us hope that if consolidation takes place in one form or another and we come up with a reasonable program, that may appeal to a wide range of voters, and if the economic situation worsens, the number of these people will exceed 20 million, and we will hope for good potential results in 2007. Democrats have never had such pre-start advantages as they have now. They have always had the negative baggage of the past. I hope we will no longer have it on our shoulders.

Ivanenko: I think that the coalition we are creating will have the limits we have proposed. It is called a coalition of democratic forces. I do not think that all democrats are right-wing democrats. And I suggest that we do not discuss a democratic coalition in terms of these categories. I suggest that we do it differently. We believe that our coalition will be free of extremist forces, ultra right or ultra left. It's a democratic coalition that wants to come to power in a civilized way. This is why I would not reject possible consolidation with non-communist left-wing structures once and for all. It's something that may be negotiated. In the future I would like to have a very strong party, not in the year 2007 of course, that will be able to counter the party of power in Russia and that will compete with it in all spheres of political life.

Q: As I read your charter I tripped upon a provision which says that the committee will resolve internally all disagreements without making them public. So, the question is, how can you create a democratic coalition --

Nemtsov: It's not the charter.

Q: To create a party in the future by violating the fundamental democratic principle that all issues should be discussed publicly?

Nemtsov: That was not the charter. The document you read is called --

Q: That is not really important.

Nemtsov: Yes, it is important. You read proposals on the creation of a coalition. And these proposals say that if disagreements arise, at first they are discussed in a meeting of the committee. I can tell you that the construction to create a coalition is very fragile. A slight breeze, including an information one, may cause it to collapse.

Khakamada: And since the winds that blow here are quite strong, and the Kremlin –

Nemtsov: Indeed, sometimes there are storms and we would not like to be nipped in the bud. It's the instinct of self-preservation. We have already understood that at first we have to negotiate and only then make our decision public. And this is what we are doing today. I think this shows our maturity. One other thing inspires optimism. Do you know what brings us all together? It is our rejection of the Kremlin's policy in Chechnya, the disintegration of the armed forces accompanied by loud announcements about the completion of military reform, and omnipotent bureaucracy blown out of proportion, the omnipotence of monopolies and state capitalism, the authorities' offensive on entrepreneurship. We strongly oppose what Putin describes as a managed information space. We oppose censorship. Briefly, the authorities have been doing everything to force us to be united and strong. I believe that this is very important. Second, we are united by the gloomy record. I have to you that this is invaluable. For some reason, it took us more that ten years. Third, we are united by common views on a whole range of issues. Certainly it is possible to look for differences between us, but we have worked intensively for five months and I cannot recall a single case when we failed to arrive at a commonly acceptable solution. This is important. One final comment. The committee includes many non-politicians. I think this is a fundamental achievement. This is actually a community of intellectuals, Moscow intellectuals for the time being, who are not indifferent to the country's fate. I believe that the presence of those people who do not want to be practicing politicians has produced a gigantic stabilizing effect on the process and the future. Actually, the country does not have moral authorities. Maybe there are people on the committee who lack political ambitions, yet it is a shame telling lies to them. I think the committee could play a unique role in the country's history in this respect. People would like to see us achieve what we have started to do. Not for those sitting on the presidium, but for those who love this country.

Q: When could this coalition be formed, according to your estimates?

Nemtsov: It's written there that a fundamental document should be signed in the fall of 2004. In 2005, a complex stage of coordination or important procedural issues will occur. It will be necessary to look for money then, and I have told you that quite a lot of money will be required. And in 2006 and 2007 this large-scale poll or an appeal to the electors to at long last answer a question of the form of a coalition is to take place. That is virtually all. This is a tight schedule, even though it seems that there are many years ahead until the next election.

Kasparov: It will take some time -- many months -- to develop the program itself, because it is obvious that a unification mechanism is the first step, one of many steps Sergei spoke about, towards unification. But it will also be important to have a substantial component of this unification. Really, a lot of discussions will be required, as we really want to propose a real program which could clearly outline what we are planning to do and what we will do if we succeed. And it will certainly takes some time for us to be able to propose an agreed position, even though it is strange enough for me as a new one here that on many issues the parties easily come to terms on many issues, because the authorities have actually done everything themselves. Traditional disputes between the SPS and Yabloko in the 1990s have now gone on the backburner, as it is absolutely clear that the main goal of the coalition/ potential coalition will be to resist the course of the authorities leading the country to disaster.

Moderator: Thank you.

See also:

Democratic Coalition

Interfax, May 18, 2004