JRL HOME - RSS - FB - Tw - Support

Moscow

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA (REN TV): Good afternoon,

Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to conduct this live interview, which will be the last one of your presidential term. We hope everyone will find it interesting.

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Good afternoon, and thank you. I would like to welcome all of you and all our viewers.

file photoLet's get started.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, you have been using absolutely liberal vocabulary during your entire term as president. You said that 'freedom is better than no freedom' and your Go Russia! article amounted to a liberal manifesto.

I want to ask you about your work. Have you accomplished what you wanted? Do you think Russia has become a more liberal country during your presidency?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Freedom is such a unique feeling that each person understands it in his own way. Of course, freedom also has some objective aspects but generally speaking it is based on our feelings. I have once said in a speech that we are only free if we can say about ourselves: I am free.

Let's look at what has happened in the past few years. I think we have made real progress in expanding civil liberties. Yes, someone may believe this movement is too timid, while others believe it has become inordinate, they say 'we shouldn't go so far, everything was all right before'. But, in my opinion, we have made substantial progress. I will not make comparisons to the early years [of modern Russian history], but will just refer to some events of the past few months.

Let's ask the people who participated in the recent political rallies if they are free of not. No matter who they support, the right, the left or the centre, I am absolutely confident that the vast majority of them will say, 'Yes, I am free because I am here, I have my views, I do not like many things, or, maybe the other way around, I like almost everything, and you can't take that away from me. But I am free'. Freedom is the way people perceive themselves, and in this sense, we have accomplished a great deal.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV (NTV): If I may, Mr President, I would like to steer this philosophical question towards the economy. The economic slogan of your presidency has been Modernisation and Competitiveness, as we all remember. Are you happy with the way these slogans have materialised? I can even narrow down the issue: during your presidency has Russia become more or less dependent on hydrocarbons?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, this is a very important issue for us because one of the major risks usually mentioned in connection with Russia is our dependence on hydrocarbons. If we look at different assessments, two major risks are usually identified: demography and an excessive dependence on the export of raw materials.

To be honest, I am not entirely satisfied with what we have achieved over the years. I did not have any illusions that within four years we would give up the export of oil and gas, and it would not have been a good thing. Just because we are a country with the biggest reserves of raw materials and we supply a huge number of countries with hydrocarbons. However, we needed to diversify our economy. On the whole, we have been making progress at a reasonable rate.

I can tell you that over the past four years, the production of industrial and capital goods, and production in the main industries have grown by about 50%. The production of radio-electronics has grown by 30%. That's a good result. However, if we talk about our export balance, hydrocarbons still make up 70% of our exports and only 5% is the sales of equipment. Therefore, the diversification efforts should continue. In fact, that is the focus of our economic modernisation programme.

Let me remind you that the programme contains five elements: the space, IT, the nuclear industry, and many other very important areas, including the production of pharmaceuticals. If we can move forward in modernising these five key sectors and a few others, we will be able to achieve economic diversification.

If we talk about macroeconomics, we can see that the current situation contributes to it because we have the smallest inflation in the entire 20-year history of our country. Last year it was 6%, and over the past 12 months it was 4%. We have a very good correlation between debt and gross domestic product, almost the lowest among all developed countries: about 10%.

Under such macroeconomic conditions, we can diversify our economy. I have absolutely no doubt about it. This is a challenge for the coming years, and a task for the new Government.

ANTON VERNITSKY (CHANNEL ONE): I would like to ask about the reforms.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Go ahead.

ANTON VERNITSKY: The former militia became the police during your presidency. The form is new but the content has remained the same, even though the personnel has undergone unscheduled attestations. The whole country has heard of the sadists from the Dalny police station. Similar reports about the beating of detainees are made almost every day. Yesterday a similar report came from Volgograd. Perhaps the time has come to reform the police as well?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, I think no one should expect that we will have a brand new police force or a new Interior Ministry agency six months after administrative changes are introduced because the police has a new name but the people working there are still the same.

Yes, some police officers ­ a considerable part, in fact ­ did not pass the attestation. 200,000 people were dismissed from the Interior Ministry agencies. However, that does not mean that everyone else instantly became different. This is the first point.

Second, we must not judge the overall level of the legal system, of law and order by the actions of individual scoundrels. Their actions have been given a principled assessment. In all such cases, criminal cases are opened and the law enforcement officers are taken into custody. This is the way it also happens in other countries.

We are currently at the very outset of the process. It's not an easy task. We're not a tiny country, like the one people sometimes hold up as a model and say: "Let's just get rid of everyone and hire new police officers." Would you join the police force?

ANNA SCHNEIDER (RTR): Do you mean Georgia?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I don't mean anything. That's what you said.

I'm saying that we're not a small country where you could do something like that. We're a big country. We have nearly two million police officers, together with the civilian staff. That is a huge army. It takes a large number of people working for a single federal agency to ensure law and order across the entire territory of the federal state. These people cannot be changed by issuing orders. They need to be educated. And I think it is a very positive trend that all such cases are becoming public and transparent.

After all, let's be honest, such problems have existed before but nobody knew about them. Why not? First, society had a more detached attitude to them, and second, the communication means we have today did not exist. Now, everybody knows about every case of misconduct, not to mention a crime. That's good. Potential offenders will be afraid, and those who have committed offences will go to prison.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Could we continue with the theme of going to prison? I would like to ask about the personal liability of officials. Take Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev. What is his personal responsibility for the Interior Ministry reform and the incidents at specific police stations? What is your response to the demands to dismiss Minister Nurgaliyev?

Rashid Nurgaliyev is just as an example because there is a feeling that when we have a major emergency, a terrorist attack or an industrial accident, it is always the low- to medium- ranking officials who get the blame but never the top officials.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I cannot completely agree with this because in many cases when crimes were committed the people who bore the responsibility were at the level of Deputy Minister, and in some cases even higher.

As for the Interior Minister, he takes full responsibility for the situation within the Ministry, and he understands this. He is also responsible for the implementation of the reform, just as I am responsible as the President and Commander-in-Chief.

Furthermore, the ministers' fate is clear: on May 7, all the ministers will submit their resignations. That's all there is to it.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: But a resignation is not the same as a criminal investigation. Is resignation the most severe punishment possible?

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: And don't forget this is a planned resignation.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Yes, especially a planned resignation.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: True, it is a planned event. Let me tell you this. If we dismiss a minister for every single incident, we will never be able to put together a strong team because we all understand the conditions in the country, the problems of our political system, the economic situation. Therefore, if we dismiss a minister for every case of misconduct, the system will collapse. I'd like to finish this point: yes, it is a planned event. But if you ask me whether a resignation is the worst punishment possible, I can tell you this: for many officials resignation is much worse than liability. So I think that dismissing an official should always remain an instrument of the state's response to certain issues.

Let me remind you that during my term in office 50% of the regional governors were replaced. Try to think of some other period in our history when the rotation of officials was so quick. Some left because their term in office expired, others left on their own free will because they saw that things were not working out for them. In some cases, even when people submitted their resignations they did not do it voluntarily but because I told them: 'Sorry, guys, things aren't working out, so see you'. I'm not even talking about certain cases when investigations were launched against the heads of regions. Let's not forget about that.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR (DOZHD): Mr President, to continue with what you said about the resignation being the most terrible punishment for some officials, there is a feeling that the fight against corruption is mostly just talk.

We have heard a lot of allegations and sometimes even accusations against high-ranking state officials. Your former Chief of Staff Sergei Naryshkin said that corruption in Moscow under Yuri Luzhkov was outrageous. And so what? There have been no consequences for Mr Luzhkov. This is not the only case but again, Luzhkov is a vivid example. We all know many examples of governors and other senior state officials against whom there is a strong prejudice and mistrust in society. However, there has been absolutely no response from the authorities.

This isn't only true of corruption offences but also concerns cases of unethical behaviour. But a person's reputation has no affect on his political future. Volgograd Governor Sergei Bozhenov became famous throughout the whole country with his trip to Italy, yet we have no doubt that his reputation will not affect his brilliant political career in the future.

Why is there no response to society's demands? Why has the fight against corruption had no real results?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Mikhail, I realise that it is the media's duty to state one's position categorically, and that is absolutely right. But your statement was not completely accurate.

I have just told you that I dismissed 50% of governors. Some of them left precisely because, for example, there was not enough evidence that they had committed a crime. The presumption of innocence has not been abolished; it is still in force. On the other hand, in some cases, I have had to make this decision for a variety of reasons (when I had reports from the Investigative Committee, and there were other materials too): to summon the colleague in question and say, 'Look, you should resign or it will be worse'. This is the first point.

Second. Criminal cases have been opened against a number of former governors. It is a mistake to believe that there are no criminal cases. This is not true ­ cases have been opened. I will not interfere with the prerogatives of the investigating authorities. If you want, look up the facts, they are all there, in the press.

Third. If we talk about the number of corruption-related offences, their number, both registered and those being investigated, has been increasing every year. Currently the Investigative Committee has 17,000 corruption cases involving state officials. That does not mean that there should be free online access to all this information. Although I did receive such a proposal at an Open Government meeting. They said, Let's do it like this: as soon as a criminal case is opened, information on the official involved should be posted online. But this is a controversial issue.

ANTON VERNITSKY: It makes some sense.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It makes sense that people should have the information but once again: there is such a thing as the presumption of innocence. If the case is dismissed in the end, this will cause problems.

The Investigative Committee has established the existence of 53 organised crime groups that committed corruption offences. So it would be a massive exaggeration to think that nothing is being done.

But if we look at the results, I will agree with you there: the results are still modest. Why is that? Frankly, because officials are a corporation, they don't want others to interfere in their business. This does not mean that they are criminals. On the contrary, officials are citizens just like us. But we must create such conditions for the state apparatus that it will not be able to turn right or left, and its behaviour will be regulated by relevant rules: the law on state service and regulations for officials. In addition, they must learn a particular culture. After all, when we talk about corruption, note that the level of corruption is very different in the so-called advanced economies ­ I say so-called because Russia is also a developed economy, although we have more problems. Compare the level of corruption, for example, in Scandinavia and southern Europe. Why is it so different even though the standard of living is fairly close? Because they have different habits, different history and a different mentality.

Therefore, corruption is also a set of stereotypes, and corruption must be fought on a mental level. Committing a corruption offence should not only be terrible but it should evoke other emotions as well: it must be seen as improper. Only in this case will we rout corruption.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: I think it would be logical if the people to tackle corruption at a mental level were not ordinary members of the public but, perhaps, the top state officials. You say that the fight against corruption has yielded results but they are just not very noticeable, and you even explain that this is because officials are a corporation. In other words, they do not hand over their own; instead, even if they don't sabotage anti-corruption measures, they certainly obstruct them.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I'm sorry, Mikhail, but this is not limited to state officials. That is why we have divided corruption cases into two groups: major corruption offences, which involve high-ranking officials and which irritate the people the most...

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: It's on a massive scale.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It is on a large scale. But everyday corruption is on an even larger scale. Let's not forget about it. When it comes to corruption offenses committed by teachers, when it comes to corruption in the medical environment, that poses an equal danger to society. But we are used to it and people don't feel remorse about giving money to teachers and doctors when that money is extorted. At the same time, corruption among officials bothers everyone. I'm just saying that the corporation doesn't just protect officials; the corporate environment exists in other places too.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: It's just that we all know about everyday corruption.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: But we don't fight it.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: You know, everyone does it in their own way. Some people fight and start by changing themselves. It would be good if everyone started with themselves.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Mikhail, do you bribe traffic policemen?

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: No, I have never done it in my life.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: So you're fighting. That's what everybody should do.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: On the subject of fighting: there are people, and we all know them, who are more interested in the fight against corruption than state officials, because it is difficult to fight oneself. Perhaps you should have from the start backed the people who publish incriminating materials online (we all know their names)? Perhaps you should have appointed Alexei Navalny, for example, the head of some anti-corruption committee, and maybe then the fight against corruption, not from within but on the outside, would have been more successful.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Or, for example, you could have launched investigations on the basis of his publications, since his name is widely known.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Yes, at least you could have responded somehow to the materials that are published.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I just want to ask for one thing: let's all agree that no one has a patent for the fight against corruption. We are all interested in it and we are all civil society activists in this sense, at least those of us sitting around this table. Most of you probably have a page on the social networking sites, or at least you follow someone, which is basically a positive thing.

We talked about the situation at the Interior Ministry and said that a huge number of cases are now becoming public knowledge. Why is this? One of the reasons is the new information space.

The same goes for corruption. It has become much easier to talk about it because it has become easy to find information on any such case. This does not mean, however, that everything written in the social networks is the truth, because you know how easy it is for feelings to escalate. It is a separate technology and, incidentally, it is quite manageable. But it is possible and necessary to rely on civil society activists.

Only I would not recommend that anyone is made into an icon, because some of these activists are real fighters against corruption, driven by entirely altruistic motives, but others have a political agenda, sometimes it is even a political gamble for them, when the anti-corruption rhetoric simply conceals a desire to boost one's political weight. Incidentally, I do not condemn it because that's what political competition is all about. But this is not philanthropy. This is political competition and should be treated as such.

My general attitude is simple: the more corruption offenses are revealed online, the better it is for the cause of fighting corruption, because whatever you say, the authorities at different levels should respond to it even if they don't like it, including facts about procurement and facts about corrupt behaviour. Therefore, on the whole, it is a good thing.

But the state must lead in the fight against corruption, which is the way it is all over the world. And we, as citizens, must help the state in its efforts.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, may I narrow the broad topic of corruption to a specific area, because it is true that it is a fact of life for the whole country, and we all know it.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Marianna, is it a fact of life for you?

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: It is true for the whole country, and I am a citizen of this country, so how else could it be?

ALEKSEI PIVOVAROV: Only Mikhail does not give bribes.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, he is a saint.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Probably.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Not at all.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: He's not a saint.

You have repeatedly criticised the judicial system and have even voiced some criticism about the Khodorkovsky case, although that didn't lead to any changes. Mikhail Khodorkovsky has not been pardoned, his case has not been reviewed and he has not been released.

You have raised judges' salaries, you have introduced more lenient punishment for economic crimes, but I am sure that no one will say that our judicial system is independent. A wide variety of agencies use judges to address their own various issues. Ordinary people do not believe that they can find justice in court. Such a judicial system slows everything down: the economy and politics. Why did you not launch a radical reform of the judicial system? Is four years too short a term or were there some other circumstances that made it impossible to undertake such a radical reform of the judiciary and to make our courts independent?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I will try to answer your question. Four years is certainly not a very long time. Indeed, there is only so much you can accomplish in four years, but changes have been made in the judicial system, and they will continue in the future. In my view, we have improved the overall discipline in the judicial system, we have created the so-called disciplinary court tribunal, and currently disciplinary boards are being established to monitor judges' behaviour.

But, friends and colleagues, you should realise that when people talk about judicial reform, this cannot be understood too literally. What does it mean to reform the courts? Does it mean kicking out all the judges? But courts have a continuous flow of cases and justice must be served every day. You cannot get rid of the judges, especially since many of them have impeccable work records. And where do you want recruit new judges?

Therefore, judicial reform doesn't mean the dismissal of all judges. It means creating conditions in which the conduct of judges is determined only by the letter and spirit of the law ­ and nothing else. So that if a judge gets a phone call, he doesn't say 'Yes, all right, we'll take care of it'. Instead he reports it to his superiors that such and such an official telephoned and asked for a certain decision on a particular case. That is how it is done all over the world. If someone approaches a judge, the judge immediately reports that he has received a request from a state official (which is almost impossible there) or one of the lawyers on the case (such attempts are sometimes made). After that the lawyer is disbarred and I don't need to tell you what happens to the official.

This must become the judges' responsibility, but it should be done in such a way that judges can follow these rules without being afraid to report that they had received a phone call from the regional or federal authorities, or from somewhere else, or that businesspeople have approached him and offered money ­ that happens as well. Therefore, there must be the right conditions.

As for the future of the judicial reform, I am absolutely sure that it will move forward. It is not enough to have the right legislation to create a modern court system. We have made significant changes in recent years. Our courts have reached a world level now, if you will. We must create a model of behaviour, and we must make sure that all judges follow it.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: But for now, it's like the famous quotation (as with the police, incidentally), "I don't have any other writers."

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, it's true. "I don't have any other writers," it is true for all of us. Because to prepare a qualified judge, five years of university education is not enough ­ you also need five to seven years of practice. Do you understand what a judge is? A judge is not even a lawyer or a prosecutor; he's the person who decides the fate of another person: he's the one who makes the final decision. So his training, his qualification is extremely important.

Now with regard to how people perceive the judicial system. I do not think that if we went to another nation and ask people whether trust their judicial system, everyone would say, "We trust it one hundred per cent." There would be different opinions as well. But here is an interesting fact. Our population, our people, do not like to go to court. Only 5% of decisions in civil matters and 15% of sentences in criminal matters are appealed. Perhaps some people do not appeal because they do not believe in the judicial perspective, but the truth is, it's not all that complicated. It means that a significant proportion of people receiving those rulings feel they are either just or, at the very least, acceptable.

REPLY: Or they understand that they cannot do anything more, and do not believe in the system.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: As I said, some of them do not believe in the justice of this system.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: After all, we have statistics: the acquittal rate in Russian courts is lower than one per cent.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: A minimal percentage; there is a strong accusatory bias.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think here I will wholly agree with you on the following: you see, it is also a reflection of a mind-set. Over the course of decades (I simply know this as a law school graduate, a law school faculty member, and a practicing lawyer), judges had just one pattern in mind: any acquittal was seen as a sign of low-quality work.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: But he will be responsible, the judge.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Not the judge ­ the investigators are now the ones responsible. The judge is above it all. Nevertheless, the judge must still separate his or her own perceptions from those of the investigation and the defence. The judge should be above the process.

I can tell you this bit of professional but interesting information. When I was still a student, there was a theory that we should not have adversary proceedings ­ as they do everywhere in the world ­ where the prosecutor competes with the lawyer, when the defence counsel competes with the prosecuting counsel. Why? Because they all personify socialist justice.

You see, this is something that really sits very deeply. I hope that with every year, we will have more and more acquittals, because that is absolutely correct. We should not shy away from them. They are not a sign of bad work by investigators; they are a sign of something else: that the judge was not shy to end things and state that there was not enough proof to declare the defendant guilty. Either the judge or the jury. We have that problem.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: I would like to continue. Marianna mentioned Khodorkovsky's name. Just recently, the Presidential Council for [Civil Society and] Human Rights concluded that submitting an appeal for pardon is not mandatory to be pardoned. This week, you pardoned Sergei Mokhnatkin; he left prison yesterday. He sent you a request for pardon, although he did not admit his guilt, and we know he stated that he would fight to reverse his sentence.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky has said many times that he will not make a request for pardon. It is clear that there probably cannot be a pardon without a request. But I want to angle this question slightly differently. Don't you feel that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's lengthy prison sentences represent a kind of problem for our nation ­ perhaps they really could be pardoned even without a request?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Alexei, you yourself began by saying that it cannot be done, and are now asking if, maybe, it can?

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: The Council for [Civil Society and] Human Rights said it is possible.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: As President, could you...

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: The Constitution...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That's right, Marianna.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: The Constitution is more important here.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes. We have article 50 of the Constitution, which states that each sentenced prisoner has the right to request a pardon. That is in the Constitution. In other words, it is mandatory to send a request. Moreover, that same article states that the sentenced prisoner has the right to seek a review of his sentence, but that does not mean that the court itself should initiate the process without a corresponding request from the prisoner. It should always be initiated by the prisoner, anywhere in the world. And with all my respect for certain colleagues who signed the corresponding papers, these papers are not based on either the Constitution or the spirit of the law. We can talk about pardon, but it should be connected to the will of the individual in question, the sentenced prisoner.

I'm going into to wilds of jurisprudence now, because I find it interesting. Let's just imagine: the President pardons someone who did not request a pardon, while at the same time the sentenced prisoner is seeking full rehabilitation, i.e., recognition that he or she is not guilty, then what happens? The President has granted a pardon, but the blemish essentially remains on that person's record. And in this case, it turns out that in doing so, the President has infringed upon the desire of that individual for a blanket pardon ­ unless, of course, he or she was the one who requested it. In other words, the President wedged himself into the process of a person trying to prove his or her complete innocence. So in my view, this position is legally and factually groundless.

But returning to Khodorkovsky and certain other people who are incarcerated, I can say one thing. You see, we should generally ask ourselves why we have so many people in jail. Do we really need ­ under current conditions, in the 21st century, - that many people convicted and put behind bars? When I was beginning my work as President, we had about one million people in prisons ­ one million people. In the time that I have been working, this number has decreased by 20 per cent, and today, we have about 800 thousand.

You know, when I receive documents requesting a pardon (incidentally, I pardoned not just one person you mentioned, there were more people pardoned), I am sometimes simply surprised: a person steals a mobile phone and gets a two-year prison sentence, or fishes seven carps out of a pond ­ a real case, by the way ­ and is sentenced to eighteen months. What is the point? An individual who essentially committed something between an administrative offence and a crime is imprisoned for one or two years, and comes out a hardened offender with a criminal jargon and a criminal mind.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Who certainly does not believe in the justice system.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, this is a problem in the justice system. And then, we spend more money on these individuals' social rehabilitation: we find them jobs and tell them that they can try to lead a different life. So this is truly a national problem and concerns not only Khodorkovsky, Lebedev or other specific individuals; it affects an enormous number of people who serve out prison sentences.

But in this specific case, to make sure I don't fail to answer your actual question... The answer to the question about Khodorkovsky and others is in the answer to the previous question: the case cannot be reviewed without a request. That is my firm position.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, here is a very important legal issue. In current practice, the President pardons only those who admit their guilt (and incidentally, this is true for early release on parole as well).

Just now, you yourself set a precedent with Sergei Mokhnatkin: he did not acknowledge his guilt, just as Mikhail Khodorkovsky does not acknowledge his. So according to existing practice, it looks like Khodorkovsky cannot be pardoned, because he doesn't recognise his guilt. But now, you have pardoned Mokhnatkin, so the precedent has been set.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I will explain this position in greater detail, since everyone is so interested in it. I hope it is also of interest to today's audience.

The issue of requesting pardon is based on article 50 of the Constitution, and the President cannot work outside the Constitution. I think this is clear to absolutely everyone.

If we are to discuss the admission or non-admission of guilt, then this is based on a Presidential Executive Order. And in this sense, I have always said that the President has the right to deviate from his own Executive Order when he feels it is right to do so. In this particular case, there were rather serious arguments that could be treated as an indirect admission of guilt, but that is not the point.

This lies in the hands of the President. The question of admitting or not admitting the guilt falls under the President's authority and has to do with the Executive Order currently in force. That's my answer.

ANTON VERNITSKY: In that case, I have a question on another topic: the military reform.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Go ahead.

ANTON VERNITSKY: I recently saw the Ministry of Defence's latest reports, which were that thick. They say that military hazing has changed radically and is declining. We know that service members' compensation is growing. We do segments on the Vremya programme about how the issue of housing for service members is being resolved.

As President, you have always championed high military expenditures (including in your speech two days ago): we plan to spend around 20 trillion rubles on army, right?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Even more than that, but through 2020.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Still, these are enormous expenditures.

As the future prime minister, will you take as firm a stance with the future Finance Minister, arguing that military expenditures should take precedent over spending on science, education and medicine?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I will be even firmer. I will just choke the money out of him. (Laughter.)

You know, Anton, I never said that the army has priority over education, or conversely, that education takes precedence over the army. That just isn't even a serious conversation. I simply said one thing: that we have to reform our Armed Forces so that they are powerful and efficient, so that the people serving there are highly motivated, so that these people love their nation and understand why they are serving in the army. That is why we have earmarked such a large amount of money.

In addition, we understand that until recently, our weapons have remained almost unchanged since the Soviet period. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have confirmed this repeatedly. Incidentally, the conflict unleashed by Georgia demonstrated this. We had to change our armaments quickly.

And now our challenge is as follows: we must increase the share of new modern military equipment to 50-70 per cent by 2020, to acquire new missiles, new armoured vehicles, new communications and everything that is necessary for ensuring defence and security.

But these expenditures should not be thoughtless; they should be aligned with our industry, which should, first of all, provide us with high-quality products, and second, handle that money. If we feel, for whatever reasons, that there is a problem, it means we will get back to this issue.

As for education, it is no less a priority than defence spending. You mentioned the figure of 20 trillion. Let me remind you, it is 20-something trillion through 2020. Meanwhile, the yearly-consolidated budget for education is two trillion rubles. Every year.

In other words, this is a significant amount of money. And by the way, it has also allowed us to change some important issues within our educational system in recent years. But defence and security will always be among the government's priorities, and my priorities, if I continue to work in corresponding positions.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Mr President, I would like to ask you about the army and about education from a more personal angle. As far as I know, your son Ilya will turn seventeen this summer...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That is correct.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: And so, the army and education are both issues that should interest you not only as president, but also as a parent. Do you think that all young men in Russia should serve in the army? As for your son, what university and profession did he choose, and what do you, as a parent, think about the National Final School Exam (EGE) and the education reform in general?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Let me talk about military service first, as it is a serious matter. Under our Constitution, this is the duty and obligation of our citizens, but the question is, what form this duty and obligation should take?

We are in the process of changing the way our armed forces recruit servicemen, and I think these are the right changes. Our objective is to recruit 85% of servicemen by contract, and conscript soldiers will account for 15 percent.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: What are the respective proportions now?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It's completely incomparable. Of course, at the moment, conscript soldiers still make up the majority, although the number of contract servicemen is growing.

Our armed forces must be comprised of professional servicemen. This is a completely normal demand of modern life. At the same time, we will retain conscript service as a partial option so as to have reservists and give opportunities to people who want to devote their lives to serving their country in the armed forces, let them go on to become contract servicemen, and some of their number might then become officers or follow some other security-related career. This is all part of this constitutional duty.

But we also have universities that set the rule that their students should be able to complete their course of study without interruption. There are two completely different views on this issue. The students, their parents, and many others, think this is the right approach, but some of the military officials and other people do not entirely agree.

My position is straightforward. I think that we need well-qualified specialists. Interrupting one's studies can have a very negative effect in some cases, though not in all. If you take a look at our higher education system today, to put it delicately, it is somewhat bloated. I think we have more than 1,150 universities today. I remind you that during the Soviet years there were 600 universities for the entire country of 300 million people. I am not making a call to go out right now and close anything down, but it is an issue that should set us thinking about the future of our country's higher education system in general, and about how to make it a quality system.

Regarding the EGE, I have talked about it with my son. I cannot say that I was particularly convinced by his arguments. This is because he has not experienced any other system, whereas I have experienced all kinds of different exam systems. He said literally the following: "It's a nightmare! It's unbelievable, the amount of work." But these are normal feelings.

For my part, we had one system before, and now this new system. My view of the EGE is that, overall, it is a modern and reasonable test, but it cannot be the sole and exclusive form of test. In other words, it would be wrong to have just this one national exam. It must be complemented with other kinds of tests, especially when we are talking about particular fields in which the EGE cannot adequately reflect a student's abilities.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: In the arts and humanities, for example...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, in these fields, because you need to see how the student thinks, speaks, and so on. The EGE is therefore the mainstream road. Incidentally, all of the teachers with whom I have spoken have confided to me out of sight of the cameras and in the corridors, that the EGE is a good system, especially in the provinces. They say, "Our students are getting into Moscow and St Petersburg universities now, whereas in the past this was almost impossible unless you had connections or some other means of getting accepted and passing the exams." And so we need to develop the EGE, while at the same time complementing it with a number of other tests in some cases.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: What university has Ilya chosen in the end?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: We are still discussing this matter with him. He has several ideas. I won't hide that he is interested in the fields I worked in previously.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Law?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Law, yes, and economics too. He is still making up his mind.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Mr President, you have said a lot today about the work to be done, the tasks still to be completed, and about future plans. But on September 24 last year, you announced your decision to step down from office. This was followed by the parliamentary election in December, which many have said were unfair, and by the biggest protests in the last decade.

My question is, what do you think of the people who were on Bolotnaya Square and Sakharov Avenue? Do you think that before September, many of them were, if not your voters, then at least people who sympathised with your views and words? Is it possible that if you had known earlier how many people would come out to rally, your decision last September might have been different?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Alexei, I did not say that I was stepping down from office. What I said was something else: I said that looking at the reality of the political situation it seemed to me that a different construction would be the best choice, and it was this construction that was subsequently chosen. Some may like it and others may not ­ that is a matter of choice and that is what democracy is all about ­ but whatever you think of it, this construction has withstood the test, as we achieved the political result we hoped for and received the support of the majority of voters.

Regarding the people who rallied at Bolotnaya, Sakharov Avenue, and other places, first of all, as President, I take a good view of all of our country's citizens. They are people with their own particular views. As for the fact that they protested against the authorities, say, on whatever issue, I respect their right and I think this is perfectly normal.

I do not entirely agree with everything that the speakers at these meetings said, because I have a different political view, but the fact that they came out to express their views deserves respect. The vast majority of these people behaved as law abiding citizens. They came out and expressed their thoughts. This is their right. Others later held rallies of their own to express their disagreement with the first lot. This is all normal.

To answer your question, I think that the decisions we announced in September have been confirmed by the political events that have taken place since then, and this is the truth criterion. We did not think this whole thing up just for the sake of it, for making a splash, but in order to obtain a concrete political result, and we obtained it ­ the mandate to govern.

Yes, the minority voice deserves our full attention but let us not forget about the construction supported by the majority. Democracy all around the world is about the majority's decision, which becomes the general and binding decision for the entire country.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Did the size of this minority at different locations impress you?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, it did.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: What about their quality?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I was impressed by both the quality and quantity. I was impressed also simply because these were the biggest meetings organised by people to voice their position in recent years, and this means that the authorities have a duty to listen and react to their views, and I think that this reaction has been forthcoming in many different areas, and we will continue this.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Mr President, at the very start, you said of the people at the rallies that each of them could say, "I am free." But I had the impression that people came to these meetings precisely because they felt they were not free in their right to choose. They said their votes had been stolen and that the elections were unfair.

What's more, we later saw that discontent and doubts over the elections is not just a disease afflicting Moscow alone. We have seen how people are willing to take desperate measures in other parts of Russia too. There was a hunger strike in Lermontov, which was successful, and in Astrakhan too, people took the desperate measure of going on a hunger strike.

Do you understand the feelings of these people who are willing to go to such extremes, people driven to such desperation? And one other question: over these last years, have you ever felt despair?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Me, no. As president, I do not have the right to give in to emotions. It happens that I have a bad mood, a very bad mood, but never despair. Whenever I have a bad mood, I go work out or play sport for a while and my mood stabilises again. And then I make decisions, maybe the most difficult and unpleasant decisions.

On the question of elections, yes, people's attitude towards elections has changed. People themselves have changed, the general level of political culture has increased, and we now have new information sources, new media. The authorities are obligated to react to this.

It is good that this has happened because it will mean change for everything, from the way we hold elections to the way we count the votes, so as to avoid any suspicion that the authorities have cheated anyone.

Let me say straight away that substantial fraud at the national level is impossible. There is simply the logic of big numbers here, and so the result obtained at this level is always the one that reflects the people's will. But even small instances of fraud spark protest, even cases of a single vote stolen at some particular polling station ­ all of this gives cause for discontent. We did not see this kind of discontent in the past, in the 1990s. It was all building up inside and now it has come to the surface. We therefore must change the laws and make use of better technology.

I decided a while ago to have polling stations equipped with special digital vote-counting devices. I confess that before the elections, influenced by the talk of the economic crisis, I allowed the Finance Ministry to postpone this project until 2015, although I could have insisted that it go ahead as originally planned. It involved a big sum of money to be honest, tens of billions of rubles.

We decided to use this money for other needs instead, for social spending. Perhaps if we had actually carried out this project there would have been fewer issues over the elections, because no matter how you look at it, these digital vote-counting systems make fraud that much harder. Perhaps we should have sped up this work. But we will do it now, along with the cameras at polling stations and so on.

Regarding the people who are protesting, first of all, this is their right. The question is that there are sincere protests, and then there are calculated political gestures. I am not accusing anyone here. But let me recall the rather mediocre Hollywood blockbuster, The Hunger Games. I don't know if you have seen it; I have. People doing this sort of thing are often acting in pursuit of a clear political objective. I think that the political objectives have been reached now and everyone is eating away hungrily and preparing for the State Duma session, and for getting their deputy's mandate. This is all normal if it stays within the law. This is my position.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: You say that large-scale fraud is not possible, but in Astrakhan, for example, it was precisely those digital vote-counting devices that caused such a reaction, because one candidate won at the polling stations where they were installed, and another won at the polling stations where it was easier to stuff the ballot boxes.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: And there was a huge difference in the figures, too.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This all illustrates what I just said. I am not saying that there was no fraud, whether in Astrakhan or other places.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: And it's not a case of just one vote being stolen.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Let me say again that elections ­ modern elections, big elections ­ cannot be 'stolen' because there are always exit polls that match up or not with the final result. It's impossible to imagine that the exit polls give a candidate 50 percent of the vote, but in the final count he gets 20 percent, and another candidate gets 70 percent. This just isn't possible. People would not buy this kind of manipulation.

But you are right. This situation illustrates what I just said: digital vote-counting systems will make fraud that much more difficult than is the case with ordinary ballot boxes. We therefore must equip all polling stations with these devices. It is a job for the authorities, for the president and parliament, to put in place this system over the next few years to minimise the possibility for fraud.

We know that doubts and allegations often can be part of political technology strategies. After all, following a reasonable logic, someone with doubts about an election's fairness would first go to court, and if the court does not satisfy his demands, might start a hunger strike. This I can understand. But when people first go on hunger strike and only then go to court, it looks more like a political programme.

To be continued.

Keywords: Russia, Economy, Investment - Russian News - Russia

 

Moscow

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA (REN TV): Good afternoon,

Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to conduct this live interview, which will be the last one of your presidential term. We hope everyone will find it interesting.

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Good afternoon, and thank you. I would like to welcome all of you and all our viewers.

Let's get started.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, you have been using absolutely liberal vocabulary during your entire term as president. You said that 'freedom is better than no freedom' and your Go Russia! article amounted to a liberal manifesto.

I want to ask you about your work. Have you accomplished what you wanted? Do you think Russia has become a more liberal country during your presidency?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Freedom is such a unique feeling that each person understands it in his own way. Of course, freedom also has some objective aspects but generally speaking it is based on our feelings. I have once said in a speech that we are only free if we can say about ourselves: I am free.

Let's look at what has happened in the past few years. I think we have made real progress in expanding civil liberties. Yes, someone may believe this movement is too timid, while others believe it has become inordinate, they say 'we shouldn't go so far, everything was all right before'. But, in my opinion, we have made substantial progress. I will not make comparisons to the early years [of modern Russian history], but will just refer to some events of the past few months.

Let's ask the people who participated in the recent political rallies if they are free of not. No matter who they support, the right, the left or the centre, I am absolutely confident that the vast majority of them will say, 'Yes, I am free because I am here, I have my views, I do not like many things, or, maybe the other way around, I like almost everything, and you can't take that away from me. But I am free'. Freedom is the way people perceive themselves, and in this sense, we have accomplished a great deal.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV (NTV): If I may, Mr President, I would like to steer this philosophical question towards the economy. The economic slogan of your presidency has been Modernisation and Competitiveness, as we all remember. Are you happy with the way these slogans have materialised? I can even narrow down the issue: during your presidency has Russia become more or less dependent on hydrocarbons?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, this is a very important issue for us because one of the major risks usually mentioned in connection with Russia is our dependence on hydrocarbons. If we look at different assessments, two major risks are usually identified: demography and an excessive dependence on the export of raw materials.

To be honest, I am not entirely satisfied with what we have achieved over the years. I did not have any illusions that within four years we would give up the export of oil and gas, and it would not have been a good thing. Just because we are a country with the biggest reserves of raw materials and we supply a huge number of countries with hydrocarbons. However, we needed to diversify our economy. On the whole, we have been making progress at a reasonable rate.

I can tell you that over the past four years, the production of industrial and capital goods, and production in the main industries have grown by about 50%. The production of radio-electronics has grown by 30%. That's a good result. However, if we talk about our export balance, hydrocarbons still make up 70% of our exports and only 5% is the sales of equipment. Therefore, the diversification efforts should continue. In fact, that is the focus of our economic modernisation programme.

Let me remind you that the programme contains five elements: the space, IT, the nuclear industry, and many other very important areas, including the production of pharmaceuticals. If we can move forward in modernising these five key sectors and a few others, we will be able to achieve economic diversification.

If we talk about macroeconomics, we can see that the current situation contributes to it because we have the smallest inflation in the entire 20-year history of our country. Last year it was 6%, and over the past 12 months it was 4%. We have a very good correlation between debt and gross domestic product, almost the lowest among all developed countries: about 10%.

Under such macroeconomic conditions, we can diversify our economy. I have absolutely no doubt about it. This is a challenge for the coming years, and a task for the new Government.

ANTON VERNITSKY (CHANNEL ONE): I would like to ask about the reforms.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Go ahead.

ANTON VERNITSKY: The former militia became the police during your presidency. The form is new but the content has remained the same, even though the personnel has undergone unscheduled attestations. The whole country has heard of the sadists from the Dalny police station. Similar reports about the beating of detainees are made almost every day. Yesterday a similar report came from Volgograd. Perhaps the time has come to reform the police as well?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, I think no one should expect that we will have a brand new police force or a new Interior Ministry agency six months after administrative changes are introduced because the police has a new name but the people working there are still the same.

Yes, some police officers ­ a considerable part, in fact ­ did not pass the attestation. 200,000 people were dismissed from the Interior Ministry agencies. However, that does not mean that everyone else instantly became different. This is the first point.

Second, we must not judge the overall level of the legal system, of law and order by the actions of individual scoundrels. Their actions have been given a principled assessment. In all such cases, criminal cases are opened and the law enforcement officers are taken into custody. This is the way it also happens in other countries.

We are currently at the very outset of the process. It's not an easy task. We're not a tiny country, like the one people sometimes hold up as a model and say: "Let's just get rid of everyone and hire new police officers." Would you join the police force?

ANNA SCHNEIDER (RTR): Do you mean Georgia?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I don't mean anything. That's what you said.

I'm saying that we're not a small country where you could do something like that. We're a big country. We have nearly two million police officers, together with the civilian staff. That is a huge army. It takes a large number of people working for a single federal agency to ensure law and order across the entire territory of the federal state. These people cannot be changed by issuing orders. They need to be educated. And I think it is a very positive trend that all such cases are becoming public and transparent.

After all, let's be honest, such problems have existed before but nobody knew about them. Why not? First, society had a more detached attitude to them, and second, the communication means we have today did not exist. Now, everybody knows about every case of misconduct, not to mention a crime. That's good. Potential offenders will be afraid, and those who have committed offences will go to prison.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Could we continue with the theme of going to prison? I would like to ask about the personal liability of officials. Take Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev. What is his personal responsibility for the Interior Ministry reform and the incidents at specific police stations? What is your response to the demands to dismiss Minister Nurgaliyev?

Rashid Nurgaliyev is just as an example because there is a feeling that when we have a major emergency, a terrorist attack or an industrial accident, it is always the low- to medium- ranking officials who get the blame but never the top officials.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I cannot completely agree with this because in many cases when crimes were committed the people who bore the responsibility were at the level of Deputy Minister, and in some cases even higher.

As for the Interior Minister, he takes full responsibility for the situation within the Ministry, and he understands this. He is also responsible for the implementation of the reform, just as I am responsible as the President and Commander-in-Chief.

Furthermore, the ministers' fate is clear: on May 7, all the ministers will submit their resignations. That's all there is to it.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: But a resignation is not the same as a criminal investigation. Is resignation the most severe punishment possible?

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: And don't forget this is a planned resignation.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Yes, especially a planned resignation.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: True, it is a planned event. Let me tell you this. If we dismiss a minister for every single incident, we will never be able to put together a strong team because we all understand the conditions in the country, the problems of our political system, the economic situation. Therefore, if we dismiss a minister for every case of misconduct, the system will collapse. I'd like to finish this point: yes, it is a planned event. But if you ask me whether a resignation is the worst punishment possible, I can tell you this: for many officials resignation is much worse than liability. So I think that dismissing an official should always remain an instrument of the state's response to certain issues.

Let me remind you that during my term in office 50% of the regional governors were replaced. Try to think of some other period in our history when the rotation of officials was so quick. Some left because their term in office expired, others left on their own free will because they saw that things were not working out for them. In some cases, even when people submitted their resignations they did not do it voluntarily but because I told them: 'Sorry, guys, things aren't working out, so see you'. I'm not even talking about certain cases when investigations were launched against the heads of regions. Let's not forget about that.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR (DOZHD): Mr President, to continue with what you said about the resignation being the most terrible punishment for some officials, there is a feeling that the fight against corruption is mostly just talk.

We have heard a lot of allegations and sometimes even accusations against high-ranking state officials. Your former Chief of Staff Sergei Naryshkin said that corruption in Moscow under Yuri Luzhkov was outrageous. And so what? There have been no consequences for Mr Luzhkov. This is not the only case but again, Luzhkov is a vivid example. We all know many examples of governors and other senior state officials against whom there is a strong prejudice and mistrust in society. However, there has been absolutely no response from the authorities.

This isn't only true of corruption offences but also concerns cases of unethical behaviour. But a person's reputation has no affect on his political future. Volgograd Governor Sergei Bozhenov became famous throughout the whole country with his trip to Italy, yet we have no doubt that his reputation will not affect his brilliant political career in the future.

Why is there no response to society's demands? Why has the fight against corruption had no real results?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Mikhail, I realise that it is the media's duty to state one's position categorically, and that is absolutely right. But your statement was not completely accurate.

I have just told you that I dismissed 50% of governors. Some of them left precisely because, for example, there was not enough evidence that they had committed a crime. The presumption of innocence has not been abolished; it is still in force. On the other hand, in some cases, I have had to make this decision for a variety of reasons (when I had reports from the Investigative Committee, and there were other materials too): to summon the colleague in question and say, 'Look, you should resign or it will be worse'. This is the first point.

Second. Criminal cases have been opened against a number of former governors. It is a mistake to believe that there are no criminal cases. This is not true ­ cases have been opened. I will not interfere with the prerogatives of the investigating authorities. If you want, look up the facts, they are all there, in the press.

Third. If we talk about the number of corruption-related offences, their number, both registered and those being investigated, has been increasing every year. Currently the Investigative Committee has 17,000 corruption cases involving state officials. That does not mean that there should be free online access to all this information. Although I did receive such a proposal at an Open Government meeting. They said, Let's do it like this: as soon as a criminal case is opened, information on the official involved should be posted online. But this is a controversial issue.

ANTON VERNITSKY: It makes some sense.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It makes sense that people should have the information but once again: there is such a thing as the presumption of innocence. If the case is dismissed in the end, this will cause problems.

The Investigative Committee has established the existence of 53 organised crime groups that committed corruption offences. So it would be a massive exaggeration to think that nothing is being done.

But if we look at the results, I will agree with you there: the results are still modest. Why is that? Frankly, because officials are a corporation, they don't want others to interfere in their business. This does not mean that they are criminals. On the contrary, officials are citizens just like us. But we must create such conditions for the state apparatus that it will not be able to turn right or left, and its behaviour will be regulated by relevant rules: the law on state service and regulations for officials. In addition, they must learn a particular culture. After all, when we talk about corruption, note that the level of corruption is very different in the so-called advanced economies ­ I say so-called because Russia is also a developed economy, although we have more problems. Compare the level of corruption, for example, in Scandinavia and southern Europe. Why is it so different even though the standard of living is fairly close? Because they have different habits, different history and a different mentality.

Therefore, corruption is also a set of stereotypes, and corruption must be fought on a mental level. Committing a corruption offence should not only be terrible but it should evoke other emotions as well: it must be seen as improper. Only in this case will we rout corruption.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: I think it would be logical if the people to tackle corruption at a mental level were not ordinary members of the public but, perhaps, the top state officials. You say that the fight against corruption has yielded results but they are just not very noticeable, and you even explain that this is because officials are a corporation. In other words, they do not hand over their own; instead, even if they don't sabotage anti-corruption measures, they certainly obstruct them.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I'm sorry, Mikhail, but this is not limited to state officials. That is why we have divided corruption cases into two groups: major corruption offences, which involve high-ranking officials and which irritate the people the most...

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: It's on a massive scale.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It is on a large scale. But everyday corruption is on an even larger scale. Let's not forget about it. When it comes to corruption offenses committed by teachers, when it comes to corruption in the medical environment, that poses an equal danger to society. But we are used to it and people don't feel remorse about giving money to teachers and doctors when that money is extorted. At the same time, corruption among officials bothers everyone. I'm just saying that the corporation doesn't just protect officials; the corporate environment exists in other places too.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: It's just that we all know about everyday corruption.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: But we don't fight it.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: You know, everyone does it in their own way. Some people fight and start by changing themselves. It would be good if everyone started with themselves.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Mikhail, do you bribe traffic policemen?

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: No, I have never done it in my life.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: So you're fighting. That's what everybody should do.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: On the subject of fighting: there are people, and we all know them, who are more interested in the fight against corruption than state officials, because it is difficult to fight oneself. Perhaps you should have from the start backed the people who publish incriminating materials online (we all know their names)? Perhaps you should have appointed Alexei Navalny, for example, the head of some anti-corruption committee, and maybe then the fight against corruption, not from within but on the outside, would have been more successful.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Or, for example, you could have launched investigations on the basis of his publications, since his name is widely known.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Yes, at least you could have responded somehow to the materials that are published.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I just want to ask for one thing: let's all agree that no one has a patent for the fight against corruption. We are all interested in it and we are all civil society activists in this sense, at least those of us sitting around this table. Most of you probably have a page on the social networking sites, or at least you follow someone, which is basically a positive thing.

We talked about the situation at the Interior Ministry and said that a huge number of cases are now becoming public knowledge. Why is this? One of the reasons is the new information space.

The same goes for corruption. It has become much easier to talk about it because it has become easy to find information on any such case. This does not mean, however, that everything written in the social networks is the truth, because you know how easy it is for feelings to escalate. It is a separate technology and, incidentally, it is quite manageable. But it is possible and necessary to rely on civil society activists.

Only I would not recommend that anyone is made into an icon, because some of these activists are real fighters against corruption, driven by entirely altruistic motives, but others have a political agenda, sometimes it is even a political gamble for them, when the anti-corruption rhetoric simply conceals a desire to boost one's political weight. Incidentally, I do not condemn it because that's what political competition is all about. But this is not philanthropy. This is political competition and should be treated as such.

My general attitude is simple: the more corruption offenses are revealed online, the better it is for the cause of fighting corruption, because whatever you say, the authorities at different levels should respond to it even if they don't like it, including facts about procurement and facts about corrupt behaviour. Therefore, on the whole, it is a good thing.

But the state must lead in the fight against corruption, which is the way it is all over the world. And we, as citizens, must help the state in its efforts.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, may I narrow the broad topic of corruption to a specific area, because it is true that it is a fact of life for the whole country, and we all know it.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Marianna, is it a fact of life for you?

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: It is true for the whole country, and I am a citizen of this country, so how else could it be?

ALEKSEI PIVOVAROV: Only Mikhail does not give bribes.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, he is a saint.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Probably.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Not at all.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: He's not a saint.

You have repeatedly criticised the judicial system and have even voiced some criticism about the Khodorkovsky case, although that didn't lead to any changes. Mikhail Khodorkovsky has not been pardoned, his case has not been reviewed and he has not been released.

You have raised judges' salaries, you have introduced more lenient punishment for economic crimes, but I am sure that no one will say that our judicial system is independent. A wide variety of agencies use judges to address their own various issues. Ordinary people do not believe that they can find justice in court. Such a judicial system slows everything down: the economy and politics. Why did you not launch a radical reform of the judicial system? Is four years too short a term or were there some other circumstances that made it impossible to undertake such a radical reform of the judiciary and to make our courts independent?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I will try to answer your question. Four years is certainly not a very long time. Indeed, there is only so much you can accomplish in four years, but changes have been made in the judicial system, and they will continue in the future. In my view, we have improved the overall discipline in the judicial system, we have created the so-called disciplinary court tribunal, and currently disciplinary boards are being established to monitor judges' behaviour.

But, friends and colleagues, you should realise that when people talk about judicial reform, this cannot be understood too literally. What does it mean to reform the courts? Does it mean kicking out all the judges? But courts have a continuous flow of cases and justice must be served every day. You cannot get rid of the judges, especially since many of them have impeccable work records. And where do you want recruit new judges?

Therefore, judicial reform doesn't mean the dismissal of all judges. It means creating conditions in which the conduct of judges is determined only by the letter and spirit of the law ­ and nothing else. So that if a judge gets a phone call, he doesn't say 'Yes, all right, we'll take care of it'. Instead he reports it to his superiors that such and such an official telephoned and asked for a certain decision on a particular case. That is how it is done all over the world. If someone approaches a judge, the judge immediately reports that he has received a request from a state official (which is almost impossible there) or one of the lawyers on the case (such attempts are sometimes made). After that the lawyer is disbarred and I don't need to tell you what happens to the official.

This must become the judges' responsibility, but it should be done in such a way that judges can follow these rules without being afraid to report that they had received a phone call from the regional or federal authorities, or from somewhere else, or that businesspeople have approached him and offered money ­ that happens as well. Therefore, there must be the right conditions.

As for the future of the judicial reform, I am absolutely sure that it will move forward. It is not enough to have the right legislation to create a modern court system. We have made significant changes in recent years. Our courts have reached a world level now, if you will. We must create a model of behaviour, and we must make sure that all judges follow it.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: But for now, it's like the famous quotation (as with the police, incidentally), "I don't have any other writers."

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, it's true. "I don't have any other writers," it is true for all of us. Because to prepare a qualified judge, five years of university education is not enough ­ you also need five to seven years of practice. Do you understand what a judge is? A judge is not even a lawyer or a prosecutor; he's the person who decides the fate of another person: he's the one who makes the final decision. So his training, his qualification is extremely important.

Now with regard to how people perceive the judicial system. I do not think that if we went to another nation and ask people whether trust their judicial system, everyone would say, "We trust it one hundred per cent." There would be different opinions as well. But here is an interesting fact. Our population, our people, do not like to go to court. Only 5% of decisions in civil matters and 15% of sentences in criminal matters are appealed. Perhaps some people do not appeal because they do not believe in the judicial perspective, but the truth is, it's not all that complicated. It means that a significant proportion of people receiving those rulings feel they are either just or, at the very least, acceptable.

REPLY: Or they understand that they cannot do anything more, and do not believe in the system.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: As I said, some of them do not believe in the justice of this system.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: After all, we have statistics: the acquittal rate in Russian courts is lower than one per cent.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: A minimal percentage; there is a strong accusatory bias.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think here I will wholly agree with you on the following: you see, it is also a reflection of a mind-set. Over the course of decades (I simply know this as a law school graduate, a law school faculty member, and a practicing lawyer), judges had just one pattern in mind: any acquittal was seen as a sign of low-quality work.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: But he will be responsible, the judge.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Not the judge ­ the investigators are now the ones responsible. The judge is above it all. Nevertheless, the judge must still separate his or her own perceptions from those of the investigation and the defence. The judge should be above the process.

I can tell you this bit of professional but interesting information. When I was still a student, there was a theory that we should not have adversary proceedings ­ as they do everywhere in the world ­ where the prosecutor competes with the lawyer, when the defence counsel competes with the prosecuting counsel. Why? Because they all personify socialist justice.

You see, this is something that really sits very deeply. I hope that with every year, we will have more and more acquittals, because that is absolutely correct. We should not shy away from them. They are not a sign of bad work by investigators; they are a sign of something else: that the judge was not shy to end things and state that there was not enough proof to declare the defendant guilty. Either the judge or the jury. We have that problem.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: I would like to continue. Marianna mentioned Khodorkovsky's name. Just recently, the Presidential Council for [Civil Society and] Human Rights concluded that submitting an appeal for pardon is not mandatory to be pardoned. This week, you pardoned Sergei Mokhnatkin; he left prison yesterday. He sent you a request for pardon, although he did not admit his guilt, and we know he stated that he would fight to reverse his sentence.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky has said many times that he will not make a request for pardon. It is clear that there probably cannot be a pardon without a request. But I want to angle this question slightly differently. Don't you feel that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's lengthy prison sentences represent a kind of problem for our nation ­ perhaps they really could be pardoned even without a request?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Alexei, you yourself began by saying that it cannot be done, and are now asking if, maybe, it can?

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: The Council for [Civil Society and] Human Rights said it is possible.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: As President, could you...

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: The Constitution...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That's right, Marianna.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: The Constitution is more important here.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes. We have article 50 of the Constitution, which states that each sentenced prisoner has the right to request a pardon. That is in the Constitution. In other words, it is mandatory to send a request. Moreover, that same article states that the sentenced prisoner has the right to seek a review of his sentence, but that does not mean that the court itself should initiate the process without a corresponding request from the prisoner. It should always be initiated by the prisoner, anywhere in the world. And with all my respect for certain colleagues who signed the corresponding papers, these papers are not based on either the Constitution or the spirit of the law. We can talk about pardon, but it should be connected to the will of the individual in question, the sentenced prisoner.

I'm going into to wilds of jurisprudence now, because I find it interesting. Let's just imagine: the President pardons someone who did not request a pardon, while at the same time the sentenced prisoner is seeking full rehabilitation, i.e., recognition that he or she is not guilty, then what happens? The President has granted a pardon, but the blemish essentially remains on that person's record. And in this case, it turns out that in doing so, the President has infringed upon the desire of that individual for a blanket pardon ­ unless, of course, he or she was the one who requested it. In other words, the President wedged himself into the process of a person trying to prove his or her complete innocence. So in my view, this position is legally and factually groundless.

But returning to Khodorkovsky and certain other people who are incarcerated, I can say one thing. You see, we should generally ask ourselves why we have so many people in jail. Do we really need ­ under current conditions, in the 21st century, - that many people convicted and put behind bars? When I was beginning my work as President, we had about one million people in prisons ­ one million people. In the time that I have been working, this number has decreased by 20 per cent, and today, we have about 800 thousand.

You know, when I receive documents requesting a pardon (incidentally, I pardoned not just one person you mentioned, there were more people pardoned), I am sometimes simply surprised: a person steals a mobile phone and gets a two-year prison sentence, or fishes seven carps out of a pond ­ a real case, by the way ­ and is sentenced to eighteen months. What is the point? An individual who essentially committed something between an administrative offence and a crime is imprisoned for one or two years, and comes out a hardened offender with a criminal jargon and a criminal mind.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Who certainly does not believe in the justice system.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, this is a problem in the justice system. And then, we spend more money on these individuals' social rehabilitation: we find them jobs and tell them that they can try to lead a different life. So this is truly a national problem and concerns not only Khodorkovsky, Lebedev or other specific individuals; it affects an enormous number of people who serve out prison sentences.

But in this specific case, to make sure I don't fail to answer your actual question... The answer to the question about Khodorkovsky and others is in the answer to the previous question: the case cannot be reviewed without a request. That is my firm position.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, here is a very important legal issue. In current practice, the President pardons only those who admit their guilt (and incidentally, this is true for early release on parole as well).

Just now, you yourself set a precedent with Sergei Mokhnatkin: he did not acknowledge his guilt, just as Mikhail Khodorkovsky does not acknowledge his. So according to existing practice, it looks like Khodorkovsky cannot be pardoned, because he doesn't recognise his guilt. But now, you have pardoned Mokhnatkin, so the precedent has been set.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I will explain this position in greater detail, since everyone is so interested in it. I hope it is also of interest to today's audience.

The issue of requesting pardon is based on article 50 of the Constitution, and the President cannot work outside the Constitution. I think this is clear to absolutely everyone.

If we are to discuss the admission or non-admission of guilt, then this is based on a Presidential Executive Order. And in this sense, I have always said that the President has the right to deviate from his own Executive Order when he feels it is right to do so. In this particular case, there were rather serious arguments that could be treated as an indirect admission of guilt, but that is not the point.

This lies in the hands of the President. The question of admitting or not admitting the guilt falls under the President's authority and has to do with the Executive Order currently in force. That's my answer.

ANTON VERNITSKY: In that case, I have a question on another topic: the military reform.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Go ahead.

ANTON VERNITSKY: I recently saw the Ministry of Defence's latest reports, which were that thick. They say that military hazing has changed radically and is declining. We know that service members' compensation is growing. We do segments on the Vremya programme about how the issue of housing for service members is being resolved.

As President, you have always championed high military expenditures (including in your speech two days ago): we plan to spend around 20 trillion rubles on army, right?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Even more than that, but through 2020.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Still, these are enormous expenditures.

As the future prime minister, will you take as firm a stance with the future Finance Minister, arguing that military expenditures should take precedent over spending on science, education and medicine?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I will be even firmer. I will just choke the money out of him. (Laughter.)

You know, Anton, I never said that the army has priority over education, or conversely, that education takes precedence over the army. That just isn't even a serious conversation. I simply said one thing: that we have to reform our Armed Forces so that they are powerful and efficient, so that the people serving there are highly motivated, so that these people love their nation and understand why they are serving in the army. That is why we have earmarked such a large amount of money.

In addition, we understand that until recently, our weapons have remained almost unchanged since the Soviet period. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have confirmed this repeatedly. Incidentally, the conflict unleashed by Georgia demonstrated this. We had to change our armaments quickly.

And now our challenge is as follows: we must increase the share of new modern military equipment to 50-70 per cent by 2020, to acquire new missiles, new armoured vehicles, new communications and everything that is necessary for ensuring defence and security.

But these expenditures should not be thoughtless; they should be aligned with our industry, which should, first of all, provide us with high-quality products, and second, handle that money. If we feel, for whatever reasons, that there is a problem, it means we will get back to this issue.

As for education, it is no less a priority than defence spending. You mentioned the figure of 20 trillion. Let me remind you, it is 20-something trillion through 2020. Meanwhile, the yearly-consolidated budget for education is two trillion rubles. Every year.

In other words, this is a significant amount of money. And by the way, it has also allowed us to change some important issues within our educational system in recent years. But defence and security will always be among the government's priorities, and my priorities, if I continue to work in corresponding positions.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Mr President, I would like to ask you about the army and about education from a more personal angle. As far as I know, your son Ilya will turn seventeen this summer...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That is correct.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: And so, the army and education are both issues that should interest you not only as president, but also as a parent. Do you think that all young men in Russia should serve in the army? As for your son, what university and profession did he choose, and what do you, as a parent, think about the National Final School Exam (EGE) and the education reform in general?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Let me talk about military service first, as it is a serious matter. Under our Constitution, this is the duty and obligation of our citizens, but the question is, what form this duty and obligation should take?

We are in the process of changing the way our armed forces recruit servicemen, and I think these are the right changes. Our objective is to recruit 85% of servicemen by contract, and conscript soldiers will account for 15 percent.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: What are the respective proportions now?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It's completely incomparable. Of course, at the moment, conscript soldiers still make up the majority, although the number of contract servicemen is growing.

Our armed forces must be comprised of professional servicemen. This is a completely normal demand of modern life. At the same time, we will retain conscript service as a partial option so as to have reservists and give opportunities to people who want to devote their lives to serving their country in the armed forces, let them go on to become contract servicemen, and some of their number might then become officers or follow some other security-related career. This is all part of this constitutional duty.

But we also have universities that set the rule that their students should be able to complete their course of study without interruption. There are two completely different views on this issue. The students, their parents, and many others, think this is the right approach, but some of the military officials and other people do not entirely agree.

My position is straightforward. I think that we need well-qualified specialists. Interrupting one's studies can have a very negative effect in some cases, though not in all. If you take a look at our higher education system today, to put it delicately, it is somewhat bloated. I think we have more than 1,150 universities today. I remind you that during the Soviet years there were 600 universities for the entire country of 300 million people. I am not making a call to go out right now and close anything down, but it is an issue that should set us thinking about the future of our country's higher education system in general, and about how to make it a quality system.

Regarding the EGE, I have talked about it with my son. I cannot say that I was particularly convinced by his arguments. This is because he has not experienced any other system, whereas I have experienced all kinds of different exam systems. He said literally the following: "It's a nightmare! It's unbelievable, the amount of work." But these are normal feelings.

For my part, we had one system before, and now this new system. My view of the EGE is that, overall, it is a modern and reasonable test, but it cannot be the sole and exclusive form of test. In other words, it would be wrong to have just this one national exam. It must be complemented with other kinds of tests, especially when we are talking about particular fields in which the EGE cannot adequately reflect a student's abilities.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: In the arts and humanities, for example...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, in these fields, because you need to see how the student thinks, speaks, and so on. The EGE is therefore the mainstream road. Incidentally, all of the teachers with whom I have spoken have confided to me out of sight of the cameras and in the corridors, that the EGE is a good system, especially in the provinces. They say, "Our students are getting into Moscow and St Petersburg universities now, whereas in the past this was almost impossible unless you had connections or some other means of getting accepted and passing the exams." And so we need to develop the EGE, while at the same time complementing it with a number of other tests in some cases.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: What university has Ilya chosen in the end?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: We are still discussing this matter with him. He has several ideas. I won't hide that he is interested in the fields I worked in previously.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Law?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Law, yes, and economics too. He is still making up his mind.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Mr President, you have said a lot today about the work to be done, the tasks still to be completed, and about future plans. But on September 24 last year, you announced your decision to step down from office. This was followed by the parliamentary election in December, which many have said were unfair, and by the biggest protests in the last decade.

My question is, what do you think of the people who were on Bolotnaya Square and Sakharov Avenue? Do you think that before September, many of them were, if not your voters, then at least people who sympathised with your views and words? Is it possible that if you had known earlier how many people would come out to rally, your decision last September might have been different?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Alexei, I did not say that I was stepping down from office. What I said was something else: I said that looking at the reality of the political situation it seemed to me that a different construction would be the best choice, and it was this construction that was subsequently chosen. Some may like it and others may not ­ that is a matter of choice and that is what democracy is all about ­ but whatever you think of it, this construction has withstood the test, as we achieved the political result we hoped for and received the support of the majority of voters.

Regarding the people who rallied at Bolotnaya, Sakharov Avenue, and other places, first of all, as President, I take a good view of all of our country's citizens. They are people with their own particular views. As for the fact that they protested against the authorities, say, on whatever issue, I respect their right and I think this is perfectly normal.

I do not entirely agree with everything that the speakers at these meetings said, because I have a different political view, but the fact that they came out to express their views deserves respect. The vast majority of these people behaved as law abiding citizens. They came out and expressed their thoughts. This is their right. Others later held rallies of their own to express their disagreement with the first lot. This is all normal.

To answer your question, I think that the decisions we announced in September have been confirmed by the political events that have taken place since then, and this is the truth criterion. We did not think this whole thing up just for the sake of it, for making a splash, but in order to obtain a concrete political result, and we obtained it ­ the mandate to govern.

Yes, the minority voice deserves our full attention but let us not forget about the construction supported by the majority. Democracy all around the world is about the majority's decision, which becomes the general and binding decision for the entire country.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Did the size of this minority at different locations impress you?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, it did.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: What about their quality?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I was impressed by both the quality and quantity. I was impressed also simply because these were the biggest meetings organised by people to voice their position in recent years, and this means that the authorities have a duty to listen and react to their views, and I think that this reaction has been forthcoming in many different areas, and we will continue this.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Mr President, at the very start, you said of the people at the rallies that each of them could say, "I am free." But I had the impression that people came to these meetings precisely because they felt they were not free in their right to choose. They said their votes had been stolen and that the elections were unfair.

What's more, we later saw that discontent and doubts over the elections is not just a disease afflicting Moscow alone. We have seen how people are willing to take desperate measures in other parts of Russia too. There was a hunger strike in Lermontov, which was successful, and in Astrakhan too, people took the desperate measure of going on a hunger strike.

Do you understand the feelings of these people who are willing to go to such extremes, people driven to such desperation? And one other question: over these last years, have you ever felt despair?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Me, no. As president, I do not have the right to give in to emotions. It happens that I have a bad mood, a very bad mood, but never despair. Whenever I have a bad mood, I go work out or play sport for a while and my mood stabilises again. And then I make decisions, maybe the most difficult and unpleasant decisions.

On the question of elections, yes, people's attitude towards elections has changed. People themselves have changed, the general level of political culture has increased, and we now have new information sources, new media. The authorities are obligated to react to this.

It is good that this has happened because it will mean change for everything, from the way we hold elections to the way we count the votes, so as to avoid any suspicion that the authorities have cheated anyone.

Let me say straight away that substantial fraud at the national level is impossible. There is simply the logic of big numbers here, and so the result obtained at this level is always the one that reflects the people's will. But even small instances of fraud spark protest, even cases of a single vote stolen at some particular polling station ­ all of this gives cause for discontent. We did not see this kind of discontent in the past, in the 1990s. It was all building up inside and now it has come to the surface. We therefore must change the laws and make use of better technology.

I decided a while ago to have polling stations equipped with special digital vote-counting devices. I confess that before the elections, influenced by the talk of the economic crisis, I allowed the Finance Ministry to postpone this project until 2015, although I could have insisted that it go ahead as originally planned. It involved a big sum of money to be honest, tens of billions of rubles.

We decided to use this money for other needs instead, for social spending. Perhaps if we had actually carried out this project there would have been fewer issues over the elections, because no matter how you look at it, these digital vote-counting systems make fraud that much harder. Perhaps we should have sped up this work. But we will do it now, along with the cameras at polling stations and so on.

Regarding the people who are protesting, first of all, this is their right. The question is that there are sincere protests, and then there are calculated political gestures. I am not accusing anyone here. But let me recall the rather mediocre Hollywood blockbuster, The Hunger Games. I don't know if you have seen it; I have. People doing this sort of thing are often acting in pursuit of a clear political objective. I think that the political objectives have been reached now and everyone is eating away hungrily and preparing for the State Duma session, and for getting their deputy's mandate. This is all normal if it stays within the law. This is my position.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: You say that large-scale fraud is not possible, but in Astrakhan, for example, it was precisely those digital vote-counting devices that caused such a reaction, because one candidate won at the polling stations where they were installed, and another won at the polling stations where it was easier to stuff the ballot boxes.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: And there was a huge difference in the figures, too.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This all illustrates what I just said. I am not saying that there was no fraud, whether in Astrakhan or other places.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: And it's not a case of just one vote being stolen.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Let me say again that elections ­ modern elections, big elections ­ cannot be 'stolen' because there are always exit polls that match up or not with the final result. It's impossible to imagine that the exit polls give a candidate 50 percent of the vote, but in the final count he gets 20 percent, and another candidate gets 70 percent. This just isn't possible. People would not buy this kind of manipulation.

But you are right. This situation illustrates what I just said: digital vote-counting systems will make fraud that much more difficult than is the case with ordinary ballot boxes. We therefore must equip all polling stations with these devices. It is a job for the authorities, for the president and parliament, to put in place this system over the next few years to minimise the possibility for fraud.

We know that doubts and allegations often can be part of political technology strategies. After all, following a reasonable logic, someone with doubts about an election's fairness would first go to court, and if the court does not satisfy his demands, might start a hunger strike. This I can understand. But when people first go on hunger strike and only then go to court, it looks more like a political programme.

To be continued.

JRL HOME