Everyone, who argued about issues with substance in the recent Duma elections, lost. And it’s far from clear what those who won are going to argue about.

One of the best-known American experts on contemporary Russia, professor at Stanford University and an associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Michael MacFaul headed the Moscow Carnegie Center and the US-funded National Democratic Institute for several years. He has written numerous books on Russia and some have called him the John Reed of the Russian democratic revolution.

On one of his frequent trips to Russia, he came to Moscow to observe the Duma elections. He shared his thoughts on the subject with Expert.

-Obviously, United Russia only won thanks to Putin’s support. It’s just as clear that the opportunity for honest competition between parties was absent from the elections. For me the most important and surprising thing was that the Kremlin decided to destroy the Communist Party, support the new left-wing nationalists in the form of the Rodina Block, and did nothing for the liberals. Why did Putin do this if he is always talking about how he plans to introduce liberal reforms? Why then did he want Glazyev’s party in the Duma? And if Putin says Russia wants to become part of the West, then why did he want Mr. Rogozin in the Duma who will get in the way of this? Who so far has drafted the legislation initiating reforms? In general it was the liberal parties.
--Now generally the government drafts new bills…
- But who in the government? The liberals. If, as Putin says, the Duma majority will form the government, then who will make liberal reforms? If Kudrin becomes head of the government, as rumor has it, then who will he rely on for support in the Duma?
Four years ago the Kremlin did a lot to get liberals into the Duma. Now everything is the exact opposite. I hope that the folks in the Kremlin are smarter than I am, but for me this seems like a strange choice. In any case, now we have a Duma in which the only common denominator for United Russia, Rodina, and the LDPR is nationalism. The only difference is that some deputies are more moderate in their nationalism and others less so.
The parties that lost for the most part due to the Kremlin’s actions—the CPRF, SPS (Union of Rightist Forces), and Yabloko—argued about issues with substance, about economic reform and how Russia should develop. They were on the left and the right, and this debate made sense to us Westerners. It’s not clear to me what those who won the elections are going to argue about.
- Recently you came out very strongly in several articles against the Russian authorities and the Russian president…
- I am a liberal and have always supported liberal transformation in Russia. What is happening now is a step away from the principles of liberalism. The Khodorkovsky Affair is an indicator of this trend, as were the elections. Putin is coming out against liberalism in Russia, and that’s why I’m against Putin and everything that indicates a rejection of liberal values.
- However, several years ago you wrote several critical articles on Russian capitalism and called it oligarchic. You accused the Russian elite of social egoism and a lack of responsibility. Now Putin has started to fight this system and you don’t like this, either?
- Yes, I didn’t like the oligarchs. I didn’t like that they became oligarchs. I didn’t like the leveraged auctions [privatizing state property]. However, Putin is not fighting the oligarchs. If he had announced, say, that the auctions had been a mistake and that he intended to fix this mistake, I would have supported him. That would be fighting oligarchy. But I don’t see any fight against oligarchy at the moment. I see political opponents being eliminated. There are no rules here, no laws. There is one set of rules for one group of people and different ones for others. Some get thrown in jail because they opposed Putin, and others run free because they supported him.
- Let’s talk a bit about liberalism in America. It’s also not particularly popular.
- Yes, that’s a very complicated issue. I defended a dissertation in England on liberalism, and I can say that liberalism only exists in theory in America. Institutionally and politically it doesn’t exist. I would call myself a liberal in the European sense. In America, the people that get called liberals would be called social democrats in Europe. The Democratic Party, of which I’m a member, would be called social democratic in Europe, while the Republicans would be called conservatives. If we are talking about civil rights and personal freedom, the Democratic Party takes the liberal position. So much attention is paid to abortion rights and the rights of sexual minorities because the government, according to the Democrats, shouldn’t tell someone how to live. The Republicans in America have a different point of view. They believe that the government should decide these issues. That’s why they want to make abortion illegal. They want to establish moral control over every individual and over society as a whole. As a liberal, I would like to draw a clear boundary between church and state and schools. I don’t want to be forced to pray. The Republicans insist that we as a society should have common national and moral standards. As a liberal, I am opposed to such a unity.
However, if we are talking about the economy, then everything is just the opposite. The Republican Party defends economic freedom. The Republicans want to lower taxes and are opposed to state control over business. The majority of Democrats want the state to control business, in particular big business, and they are for higher taxes than the Republicans. For someone like me this is a problem. So, when we’re talking about civil rights I’m a Democrat, but in terms of the economy, I’m closer to a Republican.
- The presidential elections in the US are around the corner. Are you going to keep arguing about abortion and gay rights?
- No, the main issues will be first of all the economy and second, Iraq. American society is polarized around both issues. Civil rights and freedoms have receded into the background. In general America is a fairly conservative country compared to Europe. We are closer to the Islamic countries.
- In what ways in your opinion does today’s Russian liberal differ from European or American liberals?
- They are a specific kind of liberal, operating within the confines of an extremely powerful state. They have agreed to work with this state. Real liberals don’t like monstrosities like the Russian government. Especially as it currently stands under Putin. A real liberal would say that this type of state is abhorrent. But Russian liberals don’t want to say this. Even Yavlinsky accepted the rules of the game. We have a completely different relationship to the government. First of all, we never believe it. We believe that we have to keep a close eye on those in power. Secondly, we believe that they are where they are because we put them there.
Maybe this isn’t how things actually are. Perhaps this is just a myth. But we believe in this myth. This gives us a sense of freedom. We allow ourselves to yell at those in charge when Russians wouldn’t dare.
- What would you say to the notion of a liberal empire, as Chubais put it recently? He said that America is a liberal empire that directs practically the entire world and that Russia should become a liberal empire in the post-Soviet region.
- First of all, I don’t consider America an empire. If we support liberal values around the world, I don’t think this can be called imperialism. Secondly, I don’t like the word “empire.” Thirdly, I think that an empire can’t be liberal, as it contradicts the very point of liberalism. In addition, only a fool would use the word “empire” in reference to other countries, without considering how neighboring countries and people will react.
Finally, we could only talk seriously about this idea if Russia were an actual liberal and democratic country. Chubais should take care of that first and then worry about Kazakhstan, not the other way around.
- Let’s get back to the elections. For what other reason, besides lack of support from the powers that be, did the liberals take such a beating?
- First of all, Russia still has very few liberal voters. Secondly, the liberal parties made a lot of mistakes during their campaigns. Just look at the SPS campaign ads. Three of the party leaders are flying on a private plane and say “Be like us!” Who are they talking to? Even in America an ad of that kind would be a mistake. And in Russia, in a poor country, it’s simply incomprehensible. They even turned away from their own electorate. Let’s not forget that they came to power in the past not because they were voted in, but because they were hired to conduct reforms. They never knew their electorate. This was confirmed recently.
Moreover, they got confused both in terms of their ideology and their relationship to the authorities. Yesterday they were against imperialism and now all of a sudden they’re for imperialism. Yesterday they were liberals; today they’re conservatives. Yesterday they were for the president, and today they’re against him. Yesterday they were praising the authorities for their reforms and today they’re condemning them. Anybody would get confused.
- How will the American elite react to these elections?
- With caution. Not in terms of the near future—they think Putin is a moderate politician. But what will happen to Russia in 2008? Who won now? Gryzlov, Glazyev, Rogozin, and Zhirinovsky. This doesn’t mean that one of them will become president, but it demonstrates a clear tendency that makes many wary.

More in Russian >> www.expert.ru