JRL HOME - RSS - FB - Tw - Support

Moscow

ANTON VERNITSKY: Mr President, then I have another question on the rallies topic brought up by Mikhail.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It seems our discussion today is entirely focused on politics.
file photoMARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Well, you are the number one politician in our nation. What else would we discuss?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The economy or the social sector, which probably interests people.

ANTON VERNITSKY: I think we will move on to those later.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Yes, we will.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Returning to direct gubernatorial elections, simplifying State Duma elections, simplifying party registration. You mentioned all these proposals in your Address to the Federal Assembly just a few days after the events on Bolotnaya Square.

When and how did you make these decisions? And are they related to the protests on Bolotnaya?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I launched the process of reforming our political system back in my first Address, and did so every year. And each year, I heard more or less the same thing. Somebody would say to me, "It doesn't go far enough" and "he's taking his time and worrying, but he should just get straight to the point and change everything," while someone else would say, "don't touch it, everything is fine, don't rock the boat."

This was my position from the beginning. Every year, I changed rules concerning the political system. Let me remind you, that included the political parties' access to mass media, lowering the threshold for State Duma elections, and changing procedure for granting authority to governors (not the new procedure we have now, when we moved to a party-based approach) and many other things. Incidentally, there are many of them. Each time, I would name about ten positions.

At a certain point (this was probably about a year ago), I decided that my final actions should be more powerful, because the system has matured. After all, two years ago, I sincerely stated that I was against a return to direct gubernatorial elections. Why? Because that is what I felt at the time. I felt that within the context of a large nation, a very complicated nation with many contradictions, there really are dangers. Indeed, they remain today.

But at a certain point, I understood that people want to elect their leaders. I think that it's great, because this way, we will remove this responsibility from the top authorities. Let people get a feel for it themselves and learn to differentiate responsible leaders from the demagogues; people who are capable of pursuing their own policy from those who will trail behind the problems.

And now, this model will be implemented specifically because our society has matured. It has matured to a new level. Why am I speaking about this today, and why did I bring it up several days ago? I am certain that today's accelerated movement toward democracy will not lead to chaos, because society has changed. It was different in the 1990s.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, with regard to the top authorities.

You are once again 'castling' with Putin...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: To use chess terms.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: That is the way many people talk about how you are swapping positions.

Now, Vladimir Putin is giving you, as the future Prime Minister, his current post as the head of United Russia. Clearly, in this way, Putin is released from the burden of an unpopular party. But why do you need this?

And another thing. Like him, you will head the party, but are you going to shamefully avoid joining it, or will you join it and chair it, and change something internally?

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Or will you become a member, but not its chairman?

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Or will you become a member, but not feel shame?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This line of questions could go on.

We are not swapping positions. Naturally, I understand that for the purposes of political science and journalism, this is a normal way of seeing it. But in order to exchange anything, you need to first receive it. Mr Putin won the post of President in the election and received significant support from the people. If the people had refused, then there could be no talk of castling, as you put it. The same is true of the Prime Minister position. I need to earn it and get the State Duma to vote for me. I won't hide that United Russia is a party I am associated with, which I sympathise with, and which I hope, sympathises with me.

Now as for what will happen with the party flanks and the party centre... I absolutely do not understand it when people say that United Russia is an unpopular party. Listen, it received 50 per cent of the vote in the State Duma, as confirmed by various sociological surveys. It has a current support rating of 45-47 per cent, and some assessments give as much as 52-53 per cent. What party is more popular? All the others are clearly less popular.

Moreover, it is the biggest party. I am not saying that it is the most perfect party. It has plenty of shortcomings, as does any party. So I perceive United Russia's prospects as those of a powerful centrist conservative force that needs to exist in a nation such as ours.

For example, the fact is, we still do not have a party of social democrats. And that's bad, because in general, most nations develop two main parties. On the one hand, you have conservative centrist forces, and on the other hand, the social democrats. But perhaps this will change as part of the new political reform, in the process of developing the party system.

So for me, it is entirely evident that our nation had, has and will have a centrist party, a conservative party that answers to the aspirations of a large number of people. Other people may not love it, they may hate it, and they may reject it. That's normal, that's what democracy is about. There are pure right-wing parties, there are left-wing parties ­ that's normal.

As for me personally, if I am offered the chance to head the party (and the current Prime Minister has expressed this idea), I will not turn it down.

And another thing. I feel that any party leader should be a member of that party. If he is not, for whatever reason, a member, then at some point, he will begin to separate himself from the party. This is possible for people in certain positions, such as the President, but in principle, it isn't right. So I feel that the head of the party should also be its member.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: So you represent a kind of small political sensation. In essence, we can say that you will become a member of the United Russia party and the party Prime Minister.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Given the preconditions I spoke about. For that, I would need to receive an offer and the party would need to support me.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: But, frankly speaking, there is little doubt that you will not.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Political life is a complicated thing.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: We will keep our fingers crossed.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Great. All hope lies on that. (Laughter.)

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Bringing the topic of politics to a close, one of the most discussed aspects of political reform involves the so-called filters: the Presidential, and now the municipal filters as well. You just said you think society is already prepared to return to direct gubernatorial elections. But these filters ­ particularly, as far as you're concerned, the Presidential filter ­ don't you think they contradict the very idea of direct elections? And why, how do you explain it to yourself? Why don't other mechanisms work, such as the Criminal and Administrative Codes, which could also allow us to filter out bad people?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The political framework is very specific in nature. There is no such thing as an abstract democracy. It is my deep conviction that democracy must be connected to specific ethnic grounds and the political culture that has evolved. Here is ours, in its current state. It is, without a doubt, currently better than in the 1990s. But in my view, it is nevertheless less evolved than in certain other nations. I think that you would agree with me.

Now with regard to filters. There are no filters (if taken to mean barriers) in these draft laws, including the law on electing governors. But there are qualification conditions, or more specifically, one condition in particular. Which one? That the gubernatorial candidate must garner support from municipal deputies. We were not the ones who came up with that. Let me remind you that right now, our friends in France are holding their Presidential election. This is essentially the French pattern. And we are talking here about Presidential elections, when a candidate must prove that somebody holds him or her in high regard, that he or she is recognised by deputies and mayors, that he or she is not just a random person. Because ­ and you also know this ­ let's recall who was elected in the 1990s and how; at times, it was quiete sad.

So I don't think it would be bad in any way to confirm a politician's standing by receiving 5 to 10 per cent (that was the municipalities' idea). And frankly, I do not see most of the serious parties having any problem achieving that in various ways. Beyond that, I have no comment.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: And what about the presidential filter?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Regarding the presidential filter: no such filter exists in the law. It only states that the President may ­ not must ­ hold consultations in accordance with the relevant executive order. Whether a future President will use this or not, I do not know. It seems highly possible that they will not. This is the first thing.

And the second refers to the outcome of these qualifications and consultations held by the President. It is absolutely not a given that these consultations will directly lead to elimination of a candidate. On the contrary, as provided by the draft law, these are simply consultations.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Mr President, I would like to move a little bit away from politics ­ as maybe you would like to as well. You recently signed an executive order.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: No, I don't want anything. If you want to, let's talk about politics. I simply don't know whether this is what our audience wants.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: I think that our viewers will be interested in this because it will directly affect them.

Just recently you signed an executive order on creating a Public Television network.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Not very far away from politics.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, that's right.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Does this mean that the existing public television channels cannot perform the functions invested in them, cannot properly inform our citizens, and that the money the government spends on their financing is wasted? If so, perhaps taxpayers do not need to spend their money financing public channels? And perhaps once a Public Television channel is created, other public channels could then be privatised?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Mikhail, these are all good arguments coming from someone who works for a private channel. Now if my colleagues from public channels were asking similar questions, that would be more interesting.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: As taxpayers they are also paying.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: They are; I agree with you.

With regard to Public Television, I have repeatedly said that I have never had a fixed opinion on this issue, and I think that's normal. Anyone who says: "These have been my views ever since I graduated from university" is lying.

My opinion about Public Television has also changed. At one point I thought that our existing public channels were enough. In fact, there is only one state-owned holding company: VGTRK [National State Television and Radio Company]. There is Channel One, where the state holds a controlling stake, but from a legal point of view it remains a limited liability company, and that is a bit of a different story. And so only VGTRK receives government funding directly. So even as I thought we had enough, I became convinced that we should create a public television channel. And then for various reasons I began to think about the fact that the government is the same kind of owner as a private one, such as the owner of your channel (to Mikhail Zygar), your channel (to Anton Vernitsky), or your channel (to Alexei Pivovarov). Even though your owners are very big, they are still owners. So, the state is the largest owner of all, and every owner always has their own will.

I don't think you'll disagree with me that an owner always has their own will: this is true in Russia, in America, or in France. Sometimes it is very manifest ­ this is probably damaging for the media ­ and sometimes it is more subtle and displayed more correctly. And this is the case all over the world.

So public television, unlike other channels which belong to a particular owner or owners, is actually the only resource that effectively belongs to no one, and for that reason is independent from government sources.

What do we want to do? We want to push this resource so that it can start to live off its own funds, and create an endowment fund that will generate income. And in that case the managers of the Public Television channel will not come to government offices or to the Kremlin and say: "Please give us more money." Instead, they are going to live off their own money. This creates a very different degree of independence; excuse me, but I would go so far as to say even more than for a private channel.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: But it's still the President who appoints the channel's director-general. This means that the channel's source of legitimacy remains the government.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Not so, because the President is always a consolidating figure. You can like this figure or hate it, but the fact remains that it's the consolidating figure, the guarantor of the Constitution. In France, the head of public television is appointed by the President, in the UK this is done by the Prime Minister, if I remember correctly. No one is outraged by this and calls it an infringement of our rights. As a whole this seems to be a product of entirely different experiences and expectations. I think this is normal.

And in this case money comes from different sources, while with public or private channels this is impossible. It is also why I think it's necessary to create a Public Television channel.

Now regarding the future of existing public channels: I believe that after the transition to digital broadcasting (and this will occur very soon), all levels of government will need to finalise the numbers of government-owned media. In my opinion there are a great deal of these, and we need to reorganise the public network. Some of these channels should be sold, while some should be integrated with existing government structures. Let me remind you that I even sent out certain signals to the regions. To be honest, I am not really happy with how these signals have been interpreted, because naturally every regional leader wants to have their own media source.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Sorry but I have to intervene, Mr President. It is clear that there are different forms of ownership: there are public television channels like VGTRK, there are those that appear private, but we are all aware that there are so-called federal television channels where, as a rule, it is obvious that the government is exercising control over editorial policy.

I would therefore like to draw our collective attention to the fact that our distinguished colleague, Mikhail Zygar, is here among us. Looking at it, Dozhd TV would seem to be a very small channel compared to federal ones and their huge financial resources. Yet it is absolutely logical that Mikhail is here too. Dozhd is really on trend: newsmakers are happy to appear there, you yourself were there, Mr President. Most often, people go there much more eagerly than they do to large public channels. Why? Ask anyone and the answer is simple: there is no censorship on Dozhd. Journalists there are limited only by their ideas about which news is interesting and which is not, whom to invite and whom to leave out.

I will only speak for myself because this is an issue that affects me and my colleagues at NTV. As a journalist on a public channel I am regularly confronted with restrictions that prevent me from fully carrying out my professional duties, and competing with Dozhd. These limitations are related to what is called political expediency: "There is no time for that now, my friend."

And in addition to artificially limiting competition, it seems to me that this really impinges on my ability as a journalist to carry out my professional duties, and inform viewers about current events. I would like to know how you feel about this situation, Mr President.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Somewhat differently than you because I am not a journalist. But of course I will comment on what you're talking about. I was on Dozhd; it is a modern, nice, yet relatively small channel. I do not believe that its management has no political opinions ­ they do. I would repeat that a different question concerns the form in which they are presented. Every media always has a political position, and it's usually pretty easy to determine. It is possible that if we run it properly our Public Television channel might be able to be absolutely neutral, even though a fully neutral medium does not exist. Even Dozhd takes a political position. That is the first thing.

The second. Why do newsmakers, as you said, go willingly to our esteemed colleagues at Dozhd, for example, and are less likely to appear on your channel? Not because there is censorship somewhere ­ there are places where there is no censorship, though political influence is of course natural in the major channels. It is for other reasons: mainly because some call them and others don't. And as soon as you call them, people come with pleasure for still another reason: because while the reach of federal channels is still bigger than that f Dozhd ­ despite the fact that it is very good ­ I would say that the channel is targeted at a future premium audience. Namely young people who watch Dozhd using cable networks, satellite TV, and the Internet. Nevertheless, federal channels are still much bigger. And in my opinion, if you simply call any politician it is much easier. Give them space.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: We invite you.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Come and see us, Mr President.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I am here. (Laughter.)

And now the last thing. Of course you know that the question of political expediency is a very subtle thing. Censorship, let me remind you, is prohibited by our Constitution, and if it appears anywhere it is a cause for government intervention.

As to questions of expediency, this really concerns the management responsibility of a given mainstream media and, if you want, is a matter of the internal chemistry between the managers, the journalistic team and, naturally, the television consumers. All these elements must be in harmony. How is this achieved? This is a question not for me, but for the heads of the respective media sources.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: We'll have to ask them.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You did; I think they heard.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: And not only them.

To continue with the topic of television censorship, or let's use the term political expediency, you yourself recently commented on how the Internet and TV have very different news agendas, and it's like having two parallel realities. For example, as a rule those who do not use the Internet barely know anything about the violent disputes concerning, for example, the arrest of the members of Pussy Riot and the Church's reaction to this, are hardly aware of the scandals surrounding the Church and the property of its hierarchs, and so on; the list is a long one. Do you yourself use the Internet or TV when you want to hear the news?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I can say frankly that I mostly use the Internet, not because I don't like TV, but simply because the Internet is often more convenient for me. If I'm already sitting in front of the computer, with just one click I can get to the site of any of the channels listed here, or just look at a news feed. But you asked the right question about their respective agendas, and this worries me too. What are my feelings about this?

It is true that the two media have different agendas. But I would try to approach this from another angle and ask: is this a bad thing? The issue at stake is who is interested in what. Here there are a few points you mentioned. Some topics interest all our citizens, while others are only interesting to a fairly limited number of people. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the headlines, the most discussed topics in the blogosphere, and so-called Twitter hashtags include things that are irrelevant to the concerns of 95 percent of citizens. But they create a huge wave of interest, and through them an event simply takes on a universal scale. Assuming that this is a common reality, is there really an urgent need to run to the managers of a TV channel and say: we absolutely have to put this on air, the blogosphere is talking about it. I'm not so sure that this is the right thing to do.

But on the other hand, you're right, Marianna, that there should be interaction between the media. Sometimes things happen, and in my opinion they cannot just be limited to one world, the online world or the televised world. Because even events that interest a relatively small number of people are significant nonetheless, and should therefore get TV airtime. So I would say that there can be different realities, but that there needn't be different agendas.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Marianna recalled the band Pussy Riot. Since we are all active Internet users, this topic is of great concern to us. Are you following the trial, and what do you think about the case as head of state, as a lawyer, and, finally, as a church-going person?

And in my opinion, a very important point is the following: the girls called their performance in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour a reaction to the Russian Orthodox Church's involvement in the presidential campaign. On what do you think today's relationship between the secular and religious authorities should be founded, in light of the fact that in our country there are regions where it is not Orthodoxy that predominates, but Islam, for example, and where the topic takes on a completely different connotation?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This is a very sensitive issue that we should all treat very, very carefully. Our country is extremely complicated in this regard: it is a multifaith nation, a place where crimes are motivated by religious intolerance, and where people are sometimes killed for their religious beliefs. I would like everyone, absolutely everyone, to think about this regardless of their religious affiliation. It is horrible and yet it still happens. And we absolutely need to protect the fragile peace that we were able to maintain in recent years. Because otherwise the consequences for our country could be quite simply disastrous.

But we all know that no country in the world is a federation constructed according to national principles. And yet we have a federation in this sense, and for this reason we are a unique country. And so for us the question of civil peace and religious toleration is absolutely critical.

I did everything possible to preserve peace in this regard. I am confident that the authorities will continue to do so. These are issues relating to our national survival.

With regards to the specific question and topic at hand, I would say the following: as President I will not comment on the legal aspect of the case, because consequences would ensue. And I always try to avoid legal comments until a conviction or acquittal has been made.

If I were to comment from my position as a church-going person, as you said, then I would say very carefully, so as not to offend anyone, that in my view those who participated in what was done got exactly what they expected.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Imprisonment?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Popularity.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Mr President, you said yourself, and gave examples concerning stolen carp.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: It is unlikely that they hoped to end up in jail.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: About initiating an individual who does not pose a threat to society to criminal culture, and the fact that this is a systemic error: do you really think that these girls represent such a threat to society that they should sit in jail for a few months?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I repeat that I did not make the decision, the judge did. If I start to comment on the judge's verdict (even on its resonance), then quite frankly this amounts to interference in justice. At the end of the day I am the President. You know, this transmits a signal such as keep them in, do not let them out, or release them immediately. So I would say again, as head of state, that I will not comment on the specific situation until the sentence comes into force. And here you probably won't find me guilty of something. For instance, I commented on the verdict in one case, when I visited the Journalism Faculty [at Moscow State University]. One woman had been convicted.

RESPONSE: Taisiya Osipova.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That's right. But at that point a sentence had already been given. I said that I thought it was too harsh. If you noticed, the law enforcement system and prosecutor responded to this. Why do I bring this up? To show that the President should be very sparing when he makes comments of this kind. But this does not negate what I said, namely that prison has no re-educational capacity, in the sense that a different person emerges from it; that is true.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Then I will change the topic, if you'll let me. To put it mildly, social networks on the Internet contributed to the so-called Arab spring in the Arab world, the revolution that swept across it. How do you think the Arab spring will end, what will Russia's position in the region be, and what political season is beginning in our country?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The Arab spring will end with a cold Arab fall. Spring has come to Russia, and I would like to congratulate everyone on this: it is spring in both the literal and figurative senses.

RESPONSE: They are predicting a cold wave after tomorrow.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This will only be temporary, as it has often been in our history.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Incidentally, if we talk about the Middle East, about the Arab spring, we have often said that foreign policy must be pragmatic. Have Russia's business interests changed or not in connection with events in the Middle East? For example, have we become more focused on China as a result? What were the effects for Russia of the events in the Middle East?

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Have we lost money as a result of the Arab spring?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Of course we want to be friends with everyone, and we want to trade with everyone. This is absolutely normal: it is in our foreign policy interests and rightly so.

Regarding the situation in the Arab world, despite some short statements that I made, of course the situation there remains very unstable. Radicals are coming to power in many countries and working with them will be much harder ­ that's a fact. I have talked about this with everyone, with our American and European partners, and said that the goal of any change, even the best kind, is not to transfer power to extremists. But such a threat exists. Let's hope that people in all these countries will make the right choices.

We have interests there, we want to be friends with these countries and trade with them, both conventional products, so to speak, and weapons, what our country is famous for. And we will continue to do this as much as possible. No reorientation has occurred in this respect. But of course we must take geopolitical realities into account, and in some cases we have simply stopped delivering supplies.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: If we talk about foreign policy interests, we all remember that at the beginning of your term in office, there was the 'reset' policy and an agreement on strategic offensive arms was signed. But at the end of your term there have been no major recent breakthroughs with the United States, including in the economic and political spheres. And there is a feeling that this is because it is uncomfortable to simultaneously improve relations with the United States, while blaming the Washington 'regional committee' for provoking and financing protests in the streets of Moscow.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Taking into account the fact that our relations have never been perfect, neither in the Soviet nor the post-Soviet periods, together with the Americans we have accomplished quite a lot lately. I've already talked about this, but I'm ready to repeat it here in the studio. I think that the last four years were the best in the history of Russian-American relations, simply the best. That is the first thing.

Second. This does not mean that we have no topics of discussion left. You all know this just as well as I do. There is missile defence, an issue on which we have parted ways with our American colleagues. We try to convince them that they should not disturb strategic parity. They answer: "Yes, yes, yes, we will take your interests into account," and continue to promote their own position.

By the way, not all Europeans, their partners in NATO, agree with them. The issue is not closed and must be resolved. I hope that we can move forward in the next few years, as there are still five to seven years for making final decisions. If all else fails we will deploy rockets. There is no other choice; life is life.

Now regarding the Washington 'regional committee,' which is a valid name for it. Soon there will be elections for the committee's first secretary. I have certain sympathies for one of the candidates, but this is a private matter. I hope that he will continue his glorious task of leading it.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: So is its hand still meddling in the streets of Moscow?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The workings of the hand of the Washington committee are visible in different places.

You know, if we talk about the situation in our country, we do not need to demonise Americans and it is even more meaningless to talk about how Americans are orchestrating some major political processes that occur here.

We are a large sovereign country and no one can dominate us ­ this is clear to everyone. But the notion that they are trying to influence political processes is true, just as it is true that we are also trying to influence certain political processes.

The question at hand is rather the moral evaluation of these things and the tact with which they are conducted. It is true that we are not indifferent to what happens in America. It is also true that we have less means at our disposal than the Americans do. This is still the case. And they probably do care about what happens here. But the important thing is to behave tactfully.

Along with this I have never supported the idea that people join whatever might exist, and set up a regional committee, a municipal one, or something else. This is not serious, because you can organise two, three, five people, twenty-five or five hundred, but you cannot involve larger numbers of people. And this is true whether it concerns people protesting against the government or those voting in support of the existing power.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: What about those people who, for example, took to the streets in Ulyanovsk? This is also an international issue. What is going on there? What will it become?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You mean regarding the [NATO] logistics centre?

ANNA SCHNEIDER: The transit hub, as it was called, or is it a full-fledged military base?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Of course it is a transit hub as you said. It's simply a chance to help fulfil the mission of the peacekeeping force stationed in Afghanistan. We are all interested in peace in Afghanistan, in eliminating the terrorist threat emanating from there, and making sure there is less terrorism there. So that is our public position.

It's true that we occasionally argue with NATO, but as concerns Afghanistan we have always supported the relevant peacekeeping operation. And we will continue to do so. No member of the military or civilian from NATO will be in Ulyanovsk, it's simply a technical operation. Talking about it is a normal thing, part of the political process.

Naturally, some political forces decided to exploit this issue. We have people in our country who are extremely hostile to America, and this sentiment can periodically be fanned. The relevant political forces took advantage of it and there is nothing new in this. In America too, there are people who do not like Russia and some politicians there regularly whip up anti-Russian hysteria.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, until recently Russia's relations with almost all of its closest neighbours seemed to be ruined beyond repair. Just think of the cold war with Ukraine, the real war with Georgia, the war of words with Belarus, and the information war with the Baltic states.

Do you think that during your term as President relations with our neighbours have changed for the better?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You're right, they have changed, and they were different to begin with. In Ukraine, it all started from a point where the relationship was really very hard, and the relationship with President Yushchenko was very, very difficult. Now relations have changed, and despite certain outstanding controversies and arguments with our Ukrainian partners, we still have partnership, companionable relations.

I hope that when making decisions both the Ukrainian establishment and President Yanukovych will, first of all, overcome certain stereotypes that weight upon them, and simply be more pragmatic, more responsive to the interests of the Ukrainian people.

Regarding Georgia, the story is much more tragic. There was an armed conflict, an attack on small parts of the former state of Georgia, and how it ended is well-known. They were smacked on the head, and we were forced to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent subjects of international law.

We ­ me personally, my friends, my associates, and my colleagues, as well as Russians in general ­ have no hard feelings towards Georgia. On the contrary, Georgia is a country that is close to us, and the Georgian people are near and dear to us. And incidentally, we have come to their rescue more than once, no matter what certain Georgian politicians might say.

So for that reason Saakashvili is simply a blank space, a zero. Sooner or later he will leave political history, and we will be ready to build a relationship with any other political leader who comes to power there, to restore diplomatic relations, and to go as far as they are ready.

Regarding Belarus: there too things went from love to hate and so on. Nevertheless, we still have a special relationship and the Union State. We will not hide the fact that we are often at odds with President Lukashenko; he is difficult and emotional. But you know, I can say one thing: he has taken important decisions. He looked at different options and made important decisions.

He was one of the initiators behind the signing of the Agreement on the Customs Union, and is now one of the active forces behind the implementation of the idea of ??the Eurasian Economic Union. I think these are worthy positions and it is natural that we will develop all possible relations with Belarus.

With the Baltic states, the story is more complicated. I will not hide the fact that I have often thought about visiting them. And as soon as I give corresponding instructions to an aide and say "Let's see ..." something nasty always occurs. This behaviour is unacceptable. Of course we are a big country and they are small ones, but this does not mean you have to be so rude or support the Nazis.

Therefore everything is in the hands of the leaders of those countries. If they adopt more responsible positions, then we will not hear on every street corner that "The Russian are coming! Tanks are rolling in, let's hurry and install defence missiles," and everything will be fine. We are historically linked and we are highly integrated economically. I am confident that contacts at high and highest levels between Russia and the Baltic countries will resume. You simply do not have to see Russia as a terrible bear who is always ready to tear these countries apart.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: If you don't mind, let's return to the Russian domestic affairs. I should probably begin with the cliché "if you're appointed Prime Minister," but we all realise that you will be appointed Prime Minister. Could you please clarify the role of the entity called the Open or Big Government? Let's say you have become Prime Minister and you have a real Government now.

REMARK: A closed one.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: A completely buttoned up one.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Made up of ministers.

REMARK: A closed joint stock company.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Closed joint stock companies don't exist anymore, or rather they won't exist once the changes to the Civil Code are adopted.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: So, you are the Prime Minister and you have a Government. What will this Open or Big Government be: will it be another body like the Civic Chamber, which is full of highly respected people, quite decent folk, and it's very interesting to listen to what they say but it is not entirely clear what their powers are, their initiatives disappear in the sand, it is unclear who supports them, and their range of responsibilities is not formalised anywhere. This is my sincere personal feeling, and I may be wrong. Why do we need another such body?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Alexei, I think you understand the point of the Open Government, which at first we called the Big Government for some reason and scared everyone: it's not enough that the regular government is full of freeloaders, now we need another Big one, which is just a nightmare.

So, this Open Government is basically an expert platform. The Open Government will not and cannot make decisions instead of the Government, which is empowered with authority, otherwise it would be simply ridiculous.

At the same time I must agree with you that it will be an ordinary platform for discussions of certain pressing issues.

My intention now, if I am appointed Prime Minister, is as follows. I want to pass virtually all key socioeconomic decisions through this expert forum. This is the first point.

And if the experts point out to me that there are all kinds of problems associated with the implementation of these decisions, I simply will not adopt them. That's the point. By the way, the Civic Chamber is not a bad venue either but we need to approach it critically.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Like I said, it's full of very interesting people and it's always fascinating to hear what they say.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, but it's more than that: they really have an impact on different processes.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: They don't have enough powers.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Public bodies cannot have any powers other than to say "Dear government (or not so dear), this is our position, and if you adopt this decision, you will be creating problems." That is their primary responsibility. They cannot move the pen in my hand, and they cannot say: "We are blocking it." That would be impossible.

The second point related to the Open Government is, in my opinion, just as important. By the way, this topic is very important in the whole world, and there is even a convention about it now. The Open Government is a career lift for a large number of intelligent people who can be plucked from the expert environment, and most importantly, from within the environment of active successful managers: business managers and mid-level managers in regional bodies. I will do it, have no doubt.

And finally, the third and equally important point. Any kind of Open Government will always be an information environment. We have been talking for an hour and 35 minutes about the fact that society has changed, and the information technology is such that as soon as something happens, it becomes known to everyone. Therefore, it is an environment for communicating with the authorities.

People used to make fun of the governors, saying that they were just copying the President with their blogs, Twitter and all that. But there's a big advantage to this because I have seen for myself that when people start bombarding a governor with messages on a particular issue, he cannot avoid it anymore.

In some other situation he may have said, "All right, stop by my office next week and we'll have a look." Let's say, he gets a message: "There's an urgent problem, a sewer pipe has burst." That's it, he has to respond. This is very important. So that's what the Open Government is all about. Therefore, I believe that it will be a useful resource. I hope that it will work to the full extent.

ANTON VERNITSKY: If you get the mandate, as you said, who will get a seat on your Government? Do you know already? I am ready to write down who will be on it, who is certain to stay and who is certain to leave.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Anton, start writing. Deputy prime ministers: seven items. (Laughter.)

REMARK: Everybody is writing this down.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Let's keep the mystery for a while longer.

I can say only one thing for sure. My intention, and it completely coincides with the view of President-elect Vladimir Putin, is to substantially renew the current Government.

The two of us have discussed it many times. We get together and draw little squares on a piece of paper, it's true, and we discuss which configuration would work and who would be better at which job. In my opinion, everything is clear. We need a powerful impetus created by new people.

At the same time I cannot come into the Government (if I am appointed) and say, "Right, let's just sit around for a month, leave us alone for a while until we come up with a perfect configuration, and then we'll make the decision." Practical work must begin immediately. It cannot be interrupted even for a single day. That's obvious.

Therefore, there must be people who will ensure continuity ­ I stress that. Perhaps not for the entire period, just one or two years ­ I don't know. And that balance between those who provide the continuity and an influx of new people will amount to a new Government.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Will there be many new people?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, many.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Mr President, as a future Prime Minister you will receive a very difficult legacy: everybody is saying that a very serious economic crisis could begin next year in Russia, and maybe not only in Russia.

For example, former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said that this could be a crisis of such magnitude that it may lead to a change of regime unless the Government implements some very painful and very unpopular reforms. As a future Prime Minister, are you ready for such painful and unpopular reforms that may theoretically amount to your political suicide? Are you ready to sacrifice yourself?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: First of all, any politician should be ready to sacrifice his political career for his country's interests. I'm absolutely serious. This is the first point.

Second. I cannot agree with you about the difficult legacy. It is an absolutely normal legacy. If it were 2009 now, you would be right because the situation at the time was extremely acute. The Government did a great job, they managed to cope with it, their measures were successful and our country recovered from the crisis with the least, and I emphasise this, the least problems. That is a fact.

But the 4% inflation over the past 12 months ­ is that a difficult legacy? Let me remind you that inflation was 12% or 13% four years ago. And that was with the same Finance Minister, by the way. Is 10% debt to GDP ratio a difficult legacy? In my opinion, everything is absolutely normal. But that does not mean that the situation cannot be destabilised.

The world economic recession continues and we must be fully prepared. As for predictions, it's always easier to make them from the outside, though, if you mention the former Finance Minister, he is not Vanga or Nostradamus to make such predictions. He should focus on his future career, that would be a more productive pursuit.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Are you clear on the macroeconomic challenges facing the Government? What tasks will you assign to your Government?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The tasks remain the same: to keep the macroeconomic indicators as they are at present and improve them as far as possible. But when it comes to GDP growth, it has stabilised at 4%. Not bad when compared with the United States or the EU, but it's not enough for us: we should have 6 or 7% ideally, like China or India.

Inflation: I have already mentioned the 4% accumulated inflation. That's just great! This is what we need. If we manage to keep in the 4-5% range, we will be able to address many issues, including mortgages. Because 4% added to the Central Bank's mortgage loan refinancing rate doesn't end up at 12 or 11%, but a more manageable 7 or 8%. This is quite acceptable. And so on.

Therefore, the challenge is to develop the country while maintaining the macroeconomic conditions that we have and improve them where possible.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: You won't raise the retirement age?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think we have a collection of horror stories...

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Yes, there is, and it is a symbol of painful reforms.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, a symbol of painful reforms which in fact has absolutely nothing to do with the pension reform.

Pension reform, ladies and gentlemen, though it won't concern you personally for many years since you are all young people, has nothing to do with the pension age. Yes, it is one of the issues that require discussion. But you can carry out a pension reform and create a fundamentally different pension system without changing the retirement age.

We can discuss retirement age but this topic should not overshadow the other, more acute matter. What is our pension system: is it an old-age benefit that is paid by the state or is it compensation for a loss of earnings? These are two different models. A benefit is just that, a benefit: if the state has given it to you, you should say thank you whether it is 100 rubles, 200 rubles, 10,000, 20,000, whatever. But if it is a system of compensation for lost earnings, that is a completely different model.

I emphasise that both models exist in different countries, but they tend to operate in a mixed form. Even in the United States, where the pension system is completely private, there is now a leaning in the opposite direction. It is also happening in other countries.

Therefore, we need to choose an optimal model for the development of our pension system. There will be no shocks here. As in all matters, I would like the public to hear me first ­we will consult with the people of the Russian Federation, with our people.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Your presidency is coming to an end but everyone is interested in the fate of the tandem. Since you are changing places with Vladimir Putin again, I would like to ask: will the tandem become a constant in Russian politics? Who will influence whom in decision making, and how effective do you think the tandem is as a form of governance?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: All these buzzwords used to irritate me but I got used to them. I want to say that Vladimir Putin and I are bound by 20 years of friendship, and not only political cooperation. This is the first point.

Second. I believe that in general it is a good idea when the country's fate and its political processes don't depend on just one person (who does whatever he feels like), that any decisions are made following a discussion and that there are several people in the country who influence the political process. I think this is normal and it is progress towards democracy.

If there are two people like that or three, five, seven, ten ­ it is a certain safety net for the state, if you will. We didn't invent it and we didn't write the Constitution, which states that there must be people who, under certain circumstances, are required to stand in for each other (as it is the case in Europe and the United States). These people must work in cooperation, they must trust each other and be political partners. So there is nothing out of the ordinary about it.

As for our prospects, we have already voiced them, so I think that everybody's should relax: it's here to stay.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: If I may, I would like to ask all a non-political question.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Go ahead.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: This issue concerns absolutely every citizen of the Russian Federation. During the presidential campaign, we have heard many demands to revoke your decision to cancel the summer (winter) transition to daylight saving time.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You don't even know which transition.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Everybody is confused, or at least I'm confused. I'm talking about the clocks moving one hour forward and backward in spring and autumn. Are you ready for this decision to be reconsidered? Do you think it deserves to be reconsidered? Are you ready to return to this issue and to other decisions?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Alexei, what does the fact that you are asking this question tell us? What is harder for you, when the clocks stay the same or when you have to change them twice a year? You said, "to cancel the summer (winter) time transition." Now we don't need to make any transition. What is more comfortable for you?

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: It's not about me, Mr President.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Tell me anyway.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: The iPhone, which you like so much, changes the time automatically.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: I am more used to the way it was before because all the gadgets change the time automatically and you have to change them back.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I see. This makes sense. I know because I also use electronic devices. But it's not just the question of electronic devices and convenience. When this decision was made (it wasn't just pulled out of thin air), we consulted with scientists, with different sections of the population and different regions.

The majority supported the abolition of the daylight saving time as it has been done in many countries, by the way. Naturally, some people said, "No, we are genetically linked to Europe, and if they change the time so should we." Who is opposed to this decision now? Those who travel a lot. That's absolutely understandable because during the period of the daylight saving time there is a bigger time difference, so you need to plan for it when you're travelling to Europe, for example, and other countries. Also football fans don't like it.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Fans watching football into the night...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I do not belong to the first category because I don't travel that often. But I do fall into the second category: it is true, sometimes it's inconvenient when you want to watch a match but it starts at midnight our time. But there are many people who like the new system. These are the people who live in rural areas. These are the people who live in our ordinary medium-sized cities, small towns. It's convenient for them. They go about their lives and have no problems with it.

In short, it is a matter of choice and expediency. If the majority of people support changing the system back, then we will do it. It is not a matter of my personal ambition because I see both the pros and cons of this decision.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Are we going to hold a referendum?

ANNA SCHNEIDER: I was just going to say, perhaps we should hold a referendum?

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Which is a problem, incidentally, because we haven't had a referendum on any issue for a long time.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I agree that we should hold referendums from time to time, and we should also seek new forms of referendums because the huge process with the preparation of ballots should eventually be replaced by electronic polls.

Here's what I think we could do on the issue of daylight saving time: we could hold electronic polls in several regions. Perhaps not everywhere but to make a representative sample, at least this kind of electronic poll will reveal the general attitude to the issue. If it shows that people still want to change clocks backward and forward, then we can do it.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Gadget lovers will vote.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: No doubt.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Only cows will vote against it because it doesn't disrupt their milking schedule.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: No, not only cows.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: But they will not take part in an electronic voting.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Not just cows. There will be people who are against it.

We have looked at this issue and I have discussed it with Vladimir Putin, by the way, who said: "My information is that the preferences are split fifty-fifty." So, it is a matter of choice.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: What about some other decisions, such as zero blood alcohol or the technical inspection, which was cancelled but now people are saying it may return.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: They say zero blood alcohol will also be abolished.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I can tell you my view on this issue. In the end, it is a question of authorities' consistency and responsibility.

If we talk about zero blood alcohol, I think this is the right decision, and my attitude to this is not the same as to the previous topic we discussed: that it's something we should all agree on. To put it plainly, the drivers in our country are not yet mature enough to be allowed to drink before they drive.

Motorists will be offended but I think that we mustn't do it yet. And if we skip all the nonsense such as that the meter will show something anyway, that it reacts to kefir in the system ­ that's all nonsense and I think this decision was completely justified in our environment.

Likewise, I feel very strongly about another issue: I believe that we cannot allow free circulation of arms in our country. Let the Americans practice their elocution skills, fighting for or against gun control. But we can't do it in our country for a variety of reasons.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: That is, we shouldn't even hold a referendum on these issues?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That is my position.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: And if we do hold referendums in the future, who will tally up the results? Churov? He is a magician, of course...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: With regard to big referendums, as long as Vladimir Churov is Central Election Commission Chairman, he must take part in them. If we talk about regional referendums, it will be a corresponding regional election commission. There is no need to demonise the members of electoral commissions. They are just counters.

As for the problems of the electoral system, then, to get back to the beginning on this topic, if these problems arise, it is in the places where people vote, not where the votes are counted, although one of the classics of Marxism-Leninism believed otherwise. Do you remember? It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Comrade Stalin.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That's right, you remember. In this case, this doesn't apply to us. Technology has changed.

MIKHAIL SHNAYDER: Mr President, we are probably getting close the end of our conversation...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It has been an hour and 50 minutes.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Perhaps we could return to our first philosophical question in these remaining minutes. Freedom is better than no freedom: you talked about this four years ago, and you talked about it two days ago, at the final meeting of the State Council.

When you answered Marianna's first question, you spoke about the past four years, and I want to ask you a question with an eye to the future. What do you think that you personally and your Government should do to give every person in Russia more freedom in the near future? Just philosophically speaking.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: If we started with this issue, let's also end with it. It is my sincere conviction that freedom is better than no freedom. I believe that all of you present here share this conviction. It is absolutely true no matter how much some may accuse us that it's just philosophy and empty words.

We are all used to living in a free country, even if we do not fully realise it or if we are very critical about the events taking place around us. To live in a free country is happiness. I say this with all responsibility, as a man who lived in very different conditions for more than 20 years.

Second. What should we do? We must fulfil all our promises or try to fulfil them. In the social sphere, unfortunately, we have a lot of poverty. Yes, we have increased average wage, many categories of people have greatly increased their incomes, but, unfortunately, the poverty rate remains significant and we must reduce it as much as we can. This is a vitally important task.

It is the same with unemployment. We have a reasonable figure for unemployment when compared with other European countries but we can make it even smaller, less than 5%. This concerns a vast number of people.

In the economy we must finally fulfil our promises, which we haven't been able to do so far: to significantly improve the investment climate and create a system of property rights protection. We are moving in this direction. I am not a supporter of dramatic statements but the current state of affairs is considerably better than it was. I worked in business for 10 years, so I know the situation. There's no need to idealise the 1990s: everything was extremely difficult then. But our progress has been slow, and I am not happy about it, as I have repeatedly said. We must continue working on it.

In the political sphere, everything is clear: it is necessary to implement the political reform that has already been adopted. If we implement it, we will make a huge leap in political development: we get a new quality of Russian democracy.

And, perhaps, my last point. I am ready to work on it and I will work on it if that is my destiny. But I cannot succeed alone; it should be a joint effort of our entire nation, and only then will we achieve success.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Thank you.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You're welcome.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, thank you very much for answering our questions. I am sure that we were all happy to catch you at your word that you will have no objections to coming here for a live interview to all of us together or to each separately. So please come and join us on the air. Thank you.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Thank you.

I think that in this sense we all need to change our behaviour model a little. Of course, top leaders are top leaders but they must appear on the air, both on the major networks and the smaller TV channels. It's just refreshing and shows our life as it is, and most importantly, it stops us from losing touch from reality.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Thank you and the best of luck to you.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Thank you.

Keywords: Russia, Government, Politics - Russian News - Russia

 

Moscow

ANTON VERNITSKY: Mr President, then I have another question on the rallies topic brought up by Mikhail.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It seems our discussion today is entirely focused on politics.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Well, you are the number one politician in our nation. What else would we discuss?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The economy or the social sector, which probably interests people.

ANTON VERNITSKY: I think we will move on to those later.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Yes, we will.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Returning to direct gubernatorial elections, simplifying State Duma elections, simplifying party registration. You mentioned all these proposals in your Address to the Federal Assembly just a few days after the events on Bolotnaya Square.

When and how did you make these decisions? And are they related to the protests on Bolotnaya?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I launched the process of reforming our political system back in my first Address, and did so every year. And each year, I heard more or less the same thing. Somebody would say to me, "It doesn't go far enough" and "he's taking his time and worrying, but he should just get straight to the point and change everything," while someone else would say, "don't touch it, everything is fine, don't rock the boat."

This was my position from the beginning. Every year, I changed rules concerning the political system. Let me remind you, that included the political parties' access to mass media, lowering the threshold for State Duma elections, and changing procedure for granting authority to governors (not the new procedure we have now, when we moved to a party-based approach) and many other things. Incidentally, there are many of them. Each time, I would name about ten positions.

At a certain point (this was probably about a year ago), I decided that my final actions should be more powerful, because the system has matured. After all, two years ago, I sincerely stated that I was against a return to direct gubernatorial elections. Why? Because that is what I felt at the time. I felt that within the context of a large nation, a very complicated nation with many contradictions, there really are dangers. Indeed, they remain today.

But at a certain point, I understood that people want to elect their leaders. I think that it's great, because this way, we will remove this responsibility from the top authorities. Let people get a feel for it themselves and learn to differentiate responsible leaders from the demagogues; people who are capable of pursuing their own policy from those who will trail behind the problems.

And now, this model will be implemented specifically because our society has matured. It has matured to a new level. Why am I speaking about this today, and why did I bring it up several days ago? I am certain that today's accelerated movement toward democracy will not lead to chaos, because society has changed. It was different in the 1990s.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, with regard to the top authorities.

You are once again 'castling' with Putin...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: To use chess terms.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: That is the way many people talk about how you are swapping positions.

Now, Vladimir Putin is giving you, as the future Prime Minister, his current post as the head of United Russia. Clearly, in this way, Putin is released from the burden of an unpopular party. But why do you need this?

And another thing. Like him, you will head the party, but are you going to shamefully avoid joining it, or will you join it and chair it, and change something internally?

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Or will you become a member, but not its chairman?

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Or will you become a member, but not feel shame?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This line of questions could go on.

We are not swapping positions. Naturally, I understand that for the purposes of political science and journalism, this is a normal way of seeing it. But in order to exchange anything, you need to first receive it. Mr Putin won the post of President in the election and received significant support from the people. If the people had refused, then there could be no talk of castling, as you put it. The same is true of the Prime Minister position. I need to earn it and get the State Duma to vote for me. I won't hide that United Russia is a party I am associated with, which I sympathise with, and which I hope, sympathises with me.

Now as for what will happen with the party flanks and the party centre... I absolutely do not understand it when people say that United Russia is an unpopular party. Listen, it received 50 per cent of the vote in the State Duma, as confirmed by various sociological surveys. It has a current support rating of 45-47 per cent, and some assessments give as much as 52-53 per cent. What party is more popular? All the others are clearly less popular.

Moreover, it is the biggest party. I am not saying that it is the most perfect party. It has plenty of shortcomings, as does any party. So I perceive United Russia's prospects as those of a powerful centrist conservative force that needs to exist in a nation such as ours.

For example, the fact is, we still do not have a party of social democrats. And that's bad, because in general, most nations develop two main parties. On the one hand, you have conservative centrist forces, and on the other hand, the social democrats. But perhaps this will change as part of the new political reform, in the process of developing the party system.

So for me, it is entirely evident that our nation had, has and will have a centrist party, a conservative party that answers to the aspirations of a large number of people. Other people may not love it, they may hate it, and they may reject it. That's normal, that's what democracy is about. There are pure right-wing parties, there are left-wing parties ­ that's normal.

As for me personally, if I am offered the chance to head the party (and the current Prime Minister has expressed this idea), I will not turn it down.

And another thing. I feel that any party leader should be a member of that party. If he is not, for whatever reason, a member, then at some point, he will begin to separate himself from the party. This is possible for people in certain positions, such as the President, but in principle, it isn't right. So I feel that the head of the party should also be its member.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: So you represent a kind of small political sensation. In essence, we can say that you will become a member of the United Russia party and the party Prime Minister.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Given the preconditions I spoke about. For that, I would need to receive an offer and the party would need to support me.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: But, frankly speaking, there is little doubt that you will not.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Political life is a complicated thing.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: We will keep our fingers crossed.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Great. All hope lies on that. (Laughter.)

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Bringing the topic of politics to a close, one of the most discussed aspects of political reform involves the so-called filters: the Presidential, and now the municipal filters as well. You just said you think society is already prepared to return to direct gubernatorial elections. But these filters ­ particularly, as far as you're concerned, the Presidential filter ­ don't you think they contradict the very idea of direct elections? And why, how do you explain it to yourself? Why don't other mechanisms work, such as the Criminal and Administrative Codes, which could also allow us to filter out bad people?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The political framework is very specific in nature. There is no such thing as an abstract democracy. It is my deep conviction that democracy must be connected to specific ethnic grounds and the political culture that has evolved. Here is ours, in its current state. It is, without a doubt, currently better than in the 1990s. But in my view, it is nevertheless less evolved than in certain other nations. I think that you would agree with me.

Now with regard to filters. There are no filters (if taken to mean barriers) in these draft laws, including the law on electing governors. But there are qualification conditions, or more specifically, one condition in particular. Which one? That the gubernatorial candidate must garner support from municipal deputies. We were not the ones who came up with that. Let me remind you that right now, our friends in France are holding their Presidential election. This is essentially the French pattern. And we are talking here about Presidential elections, when a candidate must prove that somebody holds him or her in high regard, that he or she is recognised by deputies and mayors, that he or she is not just a random person. Because ­ and you also know this ­ let's recall who was elected in the 1990s and how; at times, it was quiete sad.

So I don't think it would be bad in any way to confirm a politician's standing by receiving 5 to 10 per cent (that was the municipalities' idea). And frankly, I do not see most of the serious parties having any problem achieving that in various ways. Beyond that, I have no comment.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: And what about the presidential filter?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Regarding the presidential filter: no such filter exists in the law. It only states that the President may ­ not must ­ hold consultations in accordance with the relevant executive order. Whether a future President will use this or not, I do not know. It seems highly possible that they will not. This is the first thing.

And the second refers to the outcome of these qualifications and consultations held by the President. It is absolutely not a given that these consultations will directly lead to elimination of a candidate. On the contrary, as provided by the draft law, these are simply consultations.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Mr President, I would like to move a little bit away from politics ­ as maybe you would like to as well. You recently signed an executive order.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: No, I don't want anything. If you want to, let's talk about politics. I simply don't know whether this is what our audience wants.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: I think that our viewers will be interested in this because it will directly affect them.

Just recently you signed an executive order on creating a Public Television network.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Not very far away from politics.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, that's right.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Does this mean that the existing public television channels cannot perform the functions invested in them, cannot properly inform our citizens, and that the money the government spends on their financing is wasted? If so, perhaps taxpayers do not need to spend their money financing public channels? And perhaps once a Public Television channel is created, other public channels could then be privatised?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Mikhail, these are all good arguments coming from someone who works for a private channel. Now if my colleagues from public channels were asking similar questions, that would be more interesting.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: As taxpayers they are also paying.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: They are; I agree with you.

With regard to Public Television, I have repeatedly said that I have never had a fixed opinion on this issue, and I think that's normal. Anyone who says: "These have been my views ever since I graduated from university" is lying.

My opinion about Public Television has also changed. At one point I thought that our existing public channels were enough. In fact, there is only one state-owned holding company: VGTRK [National State Television and Radio Company]. There is Channel One, where the state holds a controlling stake, but from a legal point of view it remains a limited liability company, and that is a bit of a different story. And so only VGTRK receives government funding directly. So even as I thought we had enough, I became convinced that we should create a public television channel. And then for various reasons I began to think about the fact that the government is the same kind of owner as a private one, such as the owner of your channel (to Mikhail Zygar), your channel (to Anton Vernitsky), or your channel (to Alexei Pivovarov). Even though your owners are very big, they are still owners. So, the state is the largest owner of all, and every owner always has their own will.

I don't think you'll disagree with me that an owner always has their own will: this is true in Russia, in America, or in France. Sometimes it is very manifest ­ this is probably damaging for the media ­ and sometimes it is more subtle and displayed more correctly. And this is the case all over the world.

So public television, unlike other channels which belong to a particular owner or owners, is actually the only resource that effectively belongs to no one, and for that reason is independent from government sources.

What do we want to do? We want to push this resource so that it can start to live off its own funds, and create an endowment fund that will generate income. And in that case the managers of the Public Television channel will not come to government offices or to the Kremlin and say: "Please give us more money." Instead, they are going to live off their own money. This creates a very different degree of independence; excuse me, but I would go so far as to say even more than for a private channel.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: But it's still the President who appoints the channel's director-general. This means that the channel's source of legitimacy remains the government.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Not so, because the President is always a consolidating figure. You can like this figure or hate it, but the fact remains that it's the consolidating figure, the guarantor of the Constitution. In France, the head of public television is appointed by the President, in the UK this is done by the Prime Minister, if I remember correctly. No one is outraged by this and calls it an infringement of our rights. As a whole this seems to be a product of entirely different experiences and expectations. I think this is normal.

And in this case money comes from different sources, while with public or private channels this is impossible. It is also why I think it's necessary to create a Public Television channel.

Now regarding the future of existing public channels: I believe that after the transition to digital broadcasting (and this will occur very soon), all levels of government will need to finalise the numbers of government-owned media. In my opinion there are a great deal of these, and we need to reorganise the public network. Some of these channels should be sold, while some should be integrated with existing government structures. Let me remind you that I even sent out certain signals to the regions. To be honest, I am not really happy with how these signals have been interpreted, because naturally every regional leader wants to have their own media source.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Sorry but I have to intervene, Mr President. It is clear that there are different forms of ownership: there are public television channels like VGTRK, there are those that appear private, but we are all aware that there are so-called federal television channels where, as a rule, it is obvious that the government is exercising control over editorial policy.

I would therefore like to draw our collective attention to the fact that our distinguished colleague, Mikhail Zygar, is here among us. Looking at it, Dozhd TV would seem to be a very small channel compared to federal ones and their huge financial resources. Yet it is absolutely logical that Mikhail is here too. Dozhd is really on trend: newsmakers are happy to appear there, you yourself were there, Mr President. Most often, people go there much more eagerly than they do to large public channels. Why? Ask anyone and the answer is simple: there is no censorship on Dozhd. Journalists there are limited only by their ideas about which news is interesting and which is not, whom to invite and whom to leave out.

I will only speak for myself because this is an issue that affects me and my colleagues at NTV. As a journalist on a public channel I am regularly confronted with restrictions that prevent me from fully carrying out my professional duties, and competing with Dozhd. These limitations are related to what is called political expediency: "There is no time for that now, my friend."

And in addition to artificially limiting competition, it seems to me that this really impinges on my ability as a journalist to carry out my professional duties, and inform viewers about current events. I would like to know how you feel about this situation, Mr President.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Somewhat differently than you because I am not a journalist. But of course I will comment on what you're talking about. I was on Dozhd; it is a modern, nice, yet relatively small channel. I do not believe that its management has no political opinions ­ they do. I would repeat that a different question concerns the form in which they are presented. Every media always has a political position, and it's usually pretty easy to determine. It is possible that if we run it properly our Public Television channel might be able to be absolutely neutral, even though a fully neutral medium does not exist. Even Dozhd takes a political position. That is the first thing.

The second. Why do newsmakers, as you said, go willingly to our esteemed colleagues at Dozhd, for example, and are less likely to appear on your channel? Not because there is censorship somewhere ­ there are places where there is no censorship, though political influence is of course natural in the major channels. It is for other reasons: mainly because some call them and others don't. And as soon as you call them, people come with pleasure for still another reason: because while the reach of federal channels is still bigger than that f Dozhd ­ despite the fact that it is very good ­ I would say that the channel is targeted at a future premium audience. Namely young people who watch Dozhd using cable networks, satellite TV, and the Internet. Nevertheless, federal channels are still much bigger. And in my opinion, if you simply call any politician it is much easier. Give them space.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: We invite you.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Come and see us, Mr President.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I am here. (Laughter.)

And now the last thing. Of course you know that the question of political expediency is a very subtle thing. Censorship, let me remind you, is prohibited by our Constitution, and if it appears anywhere it is a cause for government intervention.

As to questions of expediency, this really concerns the management responsibility of a given mainstream media and, if you want, is a matter of the internal chemistry between the managers, the journalistic team and, naturally, the television consumers. All these elements must be in harmony. How is this achieved? This is a question not for me, but for the heads of the respective media sources.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: We'll have to ask them.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You did; I think they heard.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: And not only them.

To continue with the topic of television censorship, or let's use the term political expediency, you yourself recently commented on how the Internet and TV have very different news agendas, and it's like having two parallel realities. For example, as a rule those who do not use the Internet barely know anything about the violent disputes concerning, for example, the arrest of the members of Pussy Riot and the Church's reaction to this, are hardly aware of the scandals surrounding the Church and the property of its hierarchs, and so on; the list is a long one. Do you yourself use the Internet or TV when you want to hear the news?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I can say frankly that I mostly use the Internet, not because I don't like TV, but simply because the Internet is often more convenient for me. If I'm already sitting in front of the computer, with just one click I can get to the site of any of the channels listed here, or just look at a news feed. But you asked the right question about their respective agendas, and this worries me too. What are my feelings about this?

It is true that the two media have different agendas. But I would try to approach this from another angle and ask: is this a bad thing? The issue at stake is who is interested in what. Here there are a few points you mentioned. Some topics interest all our citizens, while others are only interesting to a fairly limited number of people. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the headlines, the most discussed topics in the blogosphere, and so-called Twitter hashtags include things that are irrelevant to the concerns of 95 percent of citizens. But they create a huge wave of interest, and through them an event simply takes on a universal scale. Assuming that this is a common reality, is there really an urgent need to run to the managers of a TV channel and say: we absolutely have to put this on air, the blogosphere is talking about it. I'm not so sure that this is the right thing to do.

But on the other hand, you're right, Marianna, that there should be interaction between the media. Sometimes things happen, and in my opinion they cannot just be limited to one world, the online world or the televised world. Because even events that interest a relatively small number of people are significant nonetheless, and should therefore get TV airtime. So I would say that there can be different realities, but that there needn't be different agendas.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Marianna recalled the band Pussy Riot. Since we are all active Internet users, this topic is of great concern to us. Are you following the trial, and what do you think about the case as head of state, as a lawyer, and, finally, as a church-going person?

And in my opinion, a very important point is the following: the girls called their performance in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour a reaction to the Russian Orthodox Church's involvement in the presidential campaign. On what do you think today's relationship between the secular and religious authorities should be founded, in light of the fact that in our country there are regions where it is not Orthodoxy that predominates, but Islam, for example, and where the topic takes on a completely different connotation?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This is a very sensitive issue that we should all treat very, very carefully. Our country is extremely complicated in this regard: it is a multifaith nation, a place where crimes are motivated by religious intolerance, and where people are sometimes killed for their religious beliefs. I would like everyone, absolutely everyone, to think about this regardless of their religious affiliation. It is horrible and yet it still happens. And we absolutely need to protect the fragile peace that we were able to maintain in recent years. Because otherwise the consequences for our country could be quite simply disastrous.

But we all know that no country in the world is a federation constructed according to national principles. And yet we have a federation in this sense, and for this reason we are a unique country. And so for us the question of civil peace and religious toleration is absolutely critical.

I did everything possible to preserve peace in this regard. I am confident that the authorities will continue to do so. These are issues relating to our national survival.

With regards to the specific question and topic at hand, I would say the following: as President I will not comment on the legal aspect of the case, because consequences would ensue. And I always try to avoid legal comments until a conviction or acquittal has been made.

If I were to comment from my position as a church-going person, as you said, then I would say very carefully, so as not to offend anyone, that in my view those who participated in what was done got exactly what they expected.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Imprisonment?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Popularity.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Mr President, you said yourself, and gave examples concerning stolen carp.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: It is unlikely that they hoped to end up in jail.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: About initiating an individual who does not pose a threat to society to criminal culture, and the fact that this is a systemic error: do you really think that these girls represent such a threat to society that they should sit in jail for a few months?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I repeat that I did not make the decision, the judge did. If I start to comment on the judge's verdict (even on its resonance), then quite frankly this amounts to interference in justice. At the end of the day I am the President. You know, this transmits a signal such as keep them in, do not let them out, or release them immediately. So I would say again, as head of state, that I will not comment on the specific situation until the sentence comes into force. And here you probably won't find me guilty of something. For instance, I commented on the verdict in one case, when I visited the Journalism Faculty [at Moscow State University]. One woman had been convicted.

RESPONSE: Taisiya Osipova.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That's right. But at that point a sentence had already been given. I said that I thought it was too harsh. If you noticed, the law enforcement system and prosecutor responded to this. Why do I bring this up? To show that the President should be very sparing when he makes comments of this kind. But this does not negate what I said, namely that prison has no re-educational capacity, in the sense that a different person emerges from it; that is true.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Then I will change the topic, if you'll let me. To put it mildly, social networks on the Internet contributed to the so-called Arab spring in the Arab world, the revolution that swept across it. How do you think the Arab spring will end, what will Russia's position in the region be, and what political season is beginning in our country?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The Arab spring will end with a cold Arab fall. Spring has come to Russia, and I would like to congratulate everyone on this: it is spring in both the literal and figurative senses.

RESPONSE: They are predicting a cold wave after tomorrow.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This will only be temporary, as it has often been in our history.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Incidentally, if we talk about the Middle East, about the Arab spring, we have often said that foreign policy must be pragmatic. Have Russia's business interests changed or not in connection with events in the Middle East? For example, have we become more focused on China as a result? What were the effects for Russia of the events in the Middle East?

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Have we lost money as a result of the Arab spring?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Of course we want to be friends with everyone, and we want to trade with everyone. This is absolutely normal: it is in our foreign policy interests and rightly so.

Regarding the situation in the Arab world, despite some short statements that I made, of course the situation there remains very unstable. Radicals are coming to power in many countries and working with them will be much harder ­ that's a fact. I have talked about this with everyone, with our American and European partners, and said that the goal of any change, even the best kind, is not to transfer power to extremists. But such a threat exists. Let's hope that people in all these countries will make the right choices.

We have interests there, we want to be friends with these countries and trade with them, both conventional products, so to speak, and weapons, what our country is famous for. And we will continue to do this as much as possible. No reorientation has occurred in this respect. But of course we must take geopolitical realities into account, and in some cases we have simply stopped delivering supplies.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: If we talk about foreign policy interests, we all remember that at the beginning of your term in office, there was the 'reset' policy and an agreement on strategic offensive arms was signed. But at the end of your term there have been no major recent breakthroughs with the United States, including in the economic and political spheres. And there is a feeling that this is because it is uncomfortable to simultaneously improve relations with the United States, while blaming the Washington 'regional committee' for provoking and financing protests in the streets of Moscow.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Taking into account the fact that our relations have never been perfect, neither in the Soviet nor the post-Soviet periods, together with the Americans we have accomplished quite a lot lately. I've already talked about this, but I'm ready to repeat it here in the studio. I think that the last four years were the best in the history of Russian-American relations, simply the best. That is the first thing.

Second. This does not mean that we have no topics of discussion left. You all know this just as well as I do. There is missile defence, an issue on which we have parted ways with our American colleagues. We try to convince them that they should not disturb strategic parity. They answer: "Yes, yes, yes, we will take your interests into account," and continue to promote their own position.

By the way, not all Europeans, their partners in NATO, agree with them. The issue is not closed and must be resolved. I hope that we can move forward in the next few years, as there are still five to seven years for making final decisions. If all else fails we will deploy rockets. There is no other choice; life is life.

Now regarding the Washington 'regional committee,' which is a valid name for it. Soon there will be elections for the committee's first secretary. I have certain sympathies for one of the candidates, but this is a private matter. I hope that he will continue his glorious task of leading it.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: So is its hand still meddling in the streets of Moscow?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The workings of the hand of the Washington committee are visible in different places.

You know, if we talk about the situation in our country, we do not need to demonise Americans and it is even more meaningless to talk about how Americans are orchestrating some major political processes that occur here.

We are a large sovereign country and no one can dominate us ­ this is clear to everyone. But the notion that they are trying to influence political processes is true, just as it is true that we are also trying to influence certain political processes.

The question at hand is rather the moral evaluation of these things and the tact with which they are conducted. It is true that we are not indifferent to what happens in America. It is also true that we have less means at our disposal than the Americans do. This is still the case. And they probably do care about what happens here. But the important thing is to behave tactfully.

Along with this I have never supported the idea that people join whatever might exist, and set up a regional committee, a municipal one, or something else. This is not serious, because you can organise two, three, five people, twenty-five or five hundred, but you cannot involve larger numbers of people. And this is true whether it concerns people protesting against the government or those voting in support of the existing power.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: What about those people who, for example, took to the streets in Ulyanovsk? This is also an international issue. What is going on there? What will it become?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You mean regarding the [NATO] logistics centre?

ANNA SCHNEIDER: The transit hub, as it was called, or is it a full-fledged military base?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Of course it is a transit hub as you said. It's simply a chance to help fulfil the mission of the peacekeeping force stationed in Afghanistan. We are all interested in peace in Afghanistan, in eliminating the terrorist threat emanating from there, and making sure there is less terrorism there. So that is our public position.

It's true that we occasionally argue with NATO, but as concerns Afghanistan we have always supported the relevant peacekeeping operation. And we will continue to do so. No member of the military or civilian from NATO will be in Ulyanovsk, it's simply a technical operation. Talking about it is a normal thing, part of the political process.

Naturally, some political forces decided to exploit this issue. We have people in our country who are extremely hostile to America, and this sentiment can periodically be fanned. The relevant political forces took advantage of it and there is nothing new in this. In America too, there are people who do not like Russia and some politicians there regularly whip up anti-Russian hysteria.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, until recently Russia's relations with almost all of its closest neighbours seemed to be ruined beyond repair. Just think of the cold war with Ukraine, the real war with Georgia, the war of words with Belarus, and the information war with the Baltic states.

Do you think that during your term as President relations with our neighbours have changed for the better?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You're right, they have changed, and they were different to begin with. In Ukraine, it all started from a point where the relationship was really very hard, and the relationship with President Yushchenko was very, very difficult. Now relations have changed, and despite certain outstanding controversies and arguments with our Ukrainian partners, we still have partnership, companionable relations.

I hope that when making decisions both the Ukrainian establishment and President Yanukovych will, first of all, overcome certain stereotypes that weight upon them, and simply be more pragmatic, more responsive to the interests of the Ukrainian people.

Regarding Georgia, the story is much more tragic. There was an armed conflict, an attack on small parts of the former state of Georgia, and how it ended is well-known. They were smacked on the head, and we were forced to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent subjects of international law.

We ­ me personally, my friends, my associates, and my colleagues, as well as Russians in general ­ have no hard feelings towards Georgia. On the contrary, Georgia is a country that is close to us, and the Georgian people are near and dear to us. And incidentally, we have come to their rescue more than once, no matter what certain Georgian politicians might say.

So for that reason Saakashvili is simply a blank space, a zero. Sooner or later he will leave political history, and we will be ready to build a relationship with any other political leader who comes to power there, to restore diplomatic relations, and to go as far as they are ready.

Regarding Belarus: there too things went from love to hate and so on. Nevertheless, we still have a special relationship and the Union State. We will not hide the fact that we are often at odds with President Lukashenko; he is difficult and emotional. But you know, I can say one thing: he has taken important decisions. He looked at different options and made important decisions.

He was one of the initiators behind the signing of the Agreement on the Customs Union, and is now one of the active forces behind the implementation of the idea of ??the Eurasian Economic Union. I think these are worthy positions and it is natural that we will develop all possible relations with Belarus.

With the Baltic states, the story is more complicated. I will not hide the fact that I have often thought about visiting them. And as soon as I give corresponding instructions to an aide and say "Let's see ..." something nasty always occurs. This behaviour is unacceptable. Of course we are a big country and they are small ones, but this does not mean you have to be so rude or support the Nazis.

Therefore everything is in the hands of the leaders of those countries. If they adopt more responsible positions, then we will not hear on every street corner that "The Russian are coming! Tanks are rolling in, let's hurry and install defence missiles," and everything will be fine. We are historically linked and we are highly integrated economically. I am confident that contacts at high and highest levels between Russia and the Baltic countries will resume. You simply do not have to see Russia as a terrible bear who is always ready to tear these countries apart.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: If you don't mind, let's return to the Russian domestic affairs. I should probably begin with the cliché "if you're appointed Prime Minister," but we all realise that you will be appointed Prime Minister. Could you please clarify the role of the entity called the Open or Big Government? Let's say you have become Prime Minister and you have a real Government now.

REMARK: A closed one.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: A completely buttoned up one.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Made up of ministers.

REMARK: A closed joint stock company.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Closed joint stock companies don't exist anymore, or rather they won't exist once the changes to the Civil Code are adopted.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: So, you are the Prime Minister and you have a Government. What will this Open or Big Government be: will it be another body like the Civic Chamber, which is full of highly respected people, quite decent folk, and it's very interesting to listen to what they say but it is not entirely clear what their powers are, their initiatives disappear in the sand, it is unclear who supports them, and their range of responsibilities is not formalised anywhere. This is my sincere personal feeling, and I may be wrong. Why do we need another such body?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Alexei, I think you understand the point of the Open Government, which at first we called the Big Government for some reason and scared everyone: it's not enough that the regular government is full of freeloaders, now we need another Big one, which is just a nightmare.

So, this Open Government is basically an expert platform. The Open Government will not and cannot make decisions instead of the Government, which is empowered with authority, otherwise it would be simply ridiculous.

At the same time I must agree with you that it will be an ordinary platform for discussions of certain pressing issues.

My intention now, if I am appointed Prime Minister, is as follows. I want to pass virtually all key socioeconomic decisions through this expert forum. This is the first point.

And if the experts point out to me that there are all kinds of problems associated with the implementation of these decisions, I simply will not adopt them. That's the point. By the way, the Civic Chamber is not a bad venue either but we need to approach it critically.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Like I said, it's full of very interesting people and it's always fascinating to hear what they say.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, but it's more than that: they really have an impact on different processes.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: They don't have enough powers.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Public bodies cannot have any powers other than to say "Dear government (or not so dear), this is our position, and if you adopt this decision, you will be creating problems." That is their primary responsibility. They cannot move the pen in my hand, and they cannot say: "We are blocking it." That would be impossible.

The second point related to the Open Government is, in my opinion, just as important. By the way, this topic is very important in the whole world, and there is even a convention about it now. The Open Government is a career lift for a large number of intelligent people who can be plucked from the expert environment, and most importantly, from within the environment of active successful managers: business managers and mid-level managers in regional bodies. I will do it, have no doubt.

And finally, the third and equally important point. Any kind of Open Government will always be an information environment. We have been talking for an hour and 35 minutes about the fact that society has changed, and the information technology is such that as soon as something happens, it becomes known to everyone. Therefore, it is an environment for communicating with the authorities.

People used to make fun of the governors, saying that they were just copying the President with their blogs, Twitter and all that. But there's a big advantage to this because I have seen for myself that when people start bombarding a governor with messages on a particular issue, he cannot avoid it anymore.

In some other situation he may have said, "All right, stop by my office next week and we'll have a look." Let's say, he gets a message: "There's an urgent problem, a sewer pipe has burst." That's it, he has to respond. This is very important. So that's what the Open Government is all about. Therefore, I believe that it will be a useful resource. I hope that it will work to the full extent.

ANTON VERNITSKY: If you get the mandate, as you said, who will get a seat on your Government? Do you know already? I am ready to write down who will be on it, who is certain to stay and who is certain to leave.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Anton, start writing. Deputy prime ministers: seven items. (Laughter.)

REMARK: Everybody is writing this down.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Let's keep the mystery for a while longer.

I can say only one thing for sure. My intention, and it completely coincides with the view of President-elect Vladimir Putin, is to substantially renew the current Government.

The two of us have discussed it many times. We get together and draw little squares on a piece of paper, it's true, and we discuss which configuration would work and who would be better at which job. In my opinion, everything is clear. We need a powerful impetus created by new people.

At the same time I cannot come into the Government (if I am appointed) and say, "Right, let's just sit around for a month, leave us alone for a while until we come up with a perfect configuration, and then we'll make the decision." Practical work must begin immediately. It cannot be interrupted even for a single day. That's obvious.

Therefore, there must be people who will ensure continuity ­ I stress that. Perhaps not for the entire period, just one or two years ­ I don't know. And that balance between those who provide the continuity and an influx of new people will amount to a new Government.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Will there be many new people?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, many.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Mr President, as a future Prime Minister you will receive a very difficult legacy: everybody is saying that a very serious economic crisis could begin next year in Russia, and maybe not only in Russia.

For example, former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said that this could be a crisis of such magnitude that it may lead to a change of regime unless the Government implements some very painful and very unpopular reforms. As a future Prime Minister, are you ready for such painful and unpopular reforms that may theoretically amount to your political suicide? Are you ready to sacrifice yourself?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: First of all, any politician should be ready to sacrifice his political career for his country's interests. I'm absolutely serious. This is the first point.

Second. I cannot agree with you about the difficult legacy. It is an absolutely normal legacy. If it were 2009 now, you would be right because the situation at the time was extremely acute. The Government did a great job, they managed to cope with it, their measures were successful and our country recovered from the crisis with the least, and I emphasise this, the least problems. That is a fact.

But the 4% inflation over the past 12 months ­ is that a difficult legacy? Let me remind you that inflation was 12% or 13% four years ago. And that was with the same Finance Minister, by the way. Is 10% debt to GDP ratio a difficult legacy? In my opinion, everything is absolutely normal. But that does not mean that the situation cannot be destabilised.

The world economic recession continues and we must be fully prepared. As for predictions, it's always easier to make them from the outside, though, if you mention the former Finance Minister, he is not Vanga or Nostradamus to make such predictions. He should focus on his future career, that would be a more productive pursuit.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Are you clear on the macroeconomic challenges facing the Government? What tasks will you assign to your Government?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The tasks remain the same: to keep the macroeconomic indicators as they are at present and improve them as far as possible. But when it comes to GDP growth, it has stabilised at 4%. Not bad when compared with the United States or the EU, but it's not enough for us: we should have 6 or 7% ideally, like China or India.

Inflation: I have already mentioned the 4% accumulated inflation. That's just great! This is what we need. If we manage to keep in the 4-5% range, we will be able to address many issues, including mortgages. Because 4% added to the Central Bank's mortgage loan refinancing rate doesn't end up at 12 or 11%, but a more manageable 7 or 8%. This is quite acceptable. And so on.

Therefore, the challenge is to develop the country while maintaining the macroeconomic conditions that we have and improve them where possible.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: You won't raise the retirement age?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think we have a collection of horror stories...

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Yes, there is, and it is a symbol of painful reforms.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, a symbol of painful reforms which in fact has absolutely nothing to do with the pension reform.

Pension reform, ladies and gentlemen, though it won't concern you personally for many years since you are all young people, has nothing to do with the pension age. Yes, it is one of the issues that require discussion. But you can carry out a pension reform and create a fundamentally different pension system without changing the retirement age.

We can discuss retirement age but this topic should not overshadow the other, more acute matter. What is our pension system: is it an old-age benefit that is paid by the state or is it compensation for a loss of earnings? These are two different models. A benefit is just that, a benefit: if the state has given it to you, you should say thank you whether it is 100 rubles, 200 rubles, 10,000, 20,000, whatever. But if it is a system of compensation for lost earnings, that is a completely different model.

I emphasise that both models exist in different countries, but they tend to operate in a mixed form. Even in the United States, where the pension system is completely private, there is now a leaning in the opposite direction. It is also happening in other countries.

Therefore, we need to choose an optimal model for the development of our pension system. There will be no shocks here. As in all matters, I would like the public to hear me first ­we will consult with the people of the Russian Federation, with our people.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Your presidency is coming to an end but everyone is interested in the fate of the tandem. Since you are changing places with Vladimir Putin again, I would like to ask: will the tandem become a constant in Russian politics? Who will influence whom in decision making, and how effective do you think the tandem is as a form of governance?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: All these buzzwords used to irritate me but I got used to them. I want to say that Vladimir Putin and I are bound by 20 years of friendship, and not only political cooperation. This is the first point.

Second. I believe that in general it is a good idea when the country's fate and its political processes don't depend on just one person (who does whatever he feels like), that any decisions are made following a discussion and that there are several people in the country who influence the political process. I think this is normal and it is progress towards democracy.

If there are two people like that or three, five, seven, ten ­ it is a certain safety net for the state, if you will. We didn't invent it and we didn't write the Constitution, which states that there must be people who, under certain circumstances, are required to stand in for each other (as it is the case in Europe and the United States). These people must work in cooperation, they must trust each other and be political partners. So there is nothing out of the ordinary about it.

As for our prospects, we have already voiced them, so I think that everybody's should relax: it's here to stay.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: If I may, I would like to ask all a non-political question.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Go ahead.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: This issue concerns absolutely every citizen of the Russian Federation. During the presidential campaign, we have heard many demands to revoke your decision to cancel the summer (winter) transition to daylight saving time.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You don't even know which transition.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Everybody is confused, or at least I'm confused. I'm talking about the clocks moving one hour forward and backward in spring and autumn. Are you ready for this decision to be reconsidered? Do you think it deserves to be reconsidered? Are you ready to return to this issue and to other decisions?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Alexei, what does the fact that you are asking this question tell us? What is harder for you, when the clocks stay the same or when you have to change them twice a year? You said, "to cancel the summer (winter) time transition." Now we don't need to make any transition. What is more comfortable for you?

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: It's not about me, Mr President.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Tell me anyway.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: The iPhone, which you like so much, changes the time automatically.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: I am more used to the way it was before because all the gadgets change the time automatically and you have to change them back.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I see. This makes sense. I know because I also use electronic devices. But it's not just the question of electronic devices and convenience. When this decision was made (it wasn't just pulled out of thin air), we consulted with scientists, with different sections of the population and different regions.

The majority supported the abolition of the daylight saving time as it has been done in many countries, by the way. Naturally, some people said, "No, we are genetically linked to Europe, and if they change the time so should we." Who is opposed to this decision now? Those who travel a lot. That's absolutely understandable because during the period of the daylight saving time there is a bigger time difference, so you need to plan for it when you're travelling to Europe, for example, and other countries. Also football fans don't like it.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Fans watching football into the night...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I do not belong to the first category because I don't travel that often. But I do fall into the second category: it is true, sometimes it's inconvenient when you want to watch a match but it starts at midnight our time. But there are many people who like the new system. These are the people who live in rural areas. These are the people who live in our ordinary medium-sized cities, small towns. It's convenient for them. They go about their lives and have no problems with it.

In short, it is a matter of choice and expediency. If the majority of people support changing the system back, then we will do it. It is not a matter of my personal ambition because I see both the pros and cons of this decision.

MIKHAIL ZYGAR: Are we going to hold a referendum?

ANNA SCHNEIDER: I was just going to say, perhaps we should hold a referendum?

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Which is a problem, incidentally, because we haven't had a referendum on any issue for a long time.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I agree that we should hold referendums from time to time, and we should also seek new forms of referendums because the huge process with the preparation of ballots should eventually be replaced by electronic polls.

Here's what I think we could do on the issue of daylight saving time: we could hold electronic polls in several regions. Perhaps not everywhere but to make a representative sample, at least this kind of electronic poll will reveal the general attitude to the issue. If it shows that people still want to change clocks backward and forward, then we can do it.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Gadget lovers will vote.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: No doubt.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Only cows will vote against it because it doesn't disrupt their milking schedule.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: No, not only cows.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: But they will not take part in an electronic voting.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Not just cows. There will be people who are against it.

We have looked at this issue and I have discussed it with Vladimir Putin, by the way, who said: "My information is that the preferences are split fifty-fifty." So, it is a matter of choice.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: What about some other decisions, such as zero blood alcohol or the technical inspection, which was cancelled but now people are saying it may return.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: They say zero blood alcohol will also be abolished.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I can tell you my view on this issue. In the end, it is a question of authorities' consistency and responsibility.

If we talk about zero blood alcohol, I think this is the right decision, and my attitude to this is not the same as to the previous topic we discussed: that it's something we should all agree on. To put it plainly, the drivers in our country are not yet mature enough to be allowed to drink before they drive.

Motorists will be offended but I think that we mustn't do it yet. And if we skip all the nonsense such as that the meter will show something anyway, that it reacts to kefir in the system ­ that's all nonsense and I think this decision was completely justified in our environment.

Likewise, I feel very strongly about another issue: I believe that we cannot allow free circulation of arms in our country. Let the Americans practice their elocution skills, fighting for or against gun control. But we can't do it in our country for a variety of reasons.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: That is, we shouldn't even hold a referendum on these issues?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That is my position.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: And if we do hold referendums in the future, who will tally up the results? Churov? He is a magician, of course...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: With regard to big referendums, as long as Vladimir Churov is Central Election Commission Chairman, he must take part in them. If we talk about regional referendums, it will be a corresponding regional election commission. There is no need to demonise the members of electoral commissions. They are just counters.

As for the problems of the electoral system, then, to get back to the beginning on this topic, if these problems arise, it is in the places where people vote, not where the votes are counted, although one of the classics of Marxism-Leninism believed otherwise. Do you remember? It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes.

ALEXEI PIVOVAROV: Comrade Stalin.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That's right, you remember. In this case, this doesn't apply to us. Technology has changed.

MIKHAIL SHNAYDER: Mr President, we are probably getting close the end of our conversation...

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It has been an hour and 50 minutes.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Perhaps we could return to our first philosophical question in these remaining minutes. Freedom is better than no freedom: you talked about this four years ago, and you talked about it two days ago, at the final meeting of the State Council.

When you answered Marianna's first question, you spoke about the past four years, and I want to ask you a question with an eye to the future. What do you think that you personally and your Government should do to give every person in Russia more freedom in the near future? Just philosophically speaking.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: If we started with this issue, let's also end with it. It is my sincere conviction that freedom is better than no freedom. I believe that all of you present here share this conviction. It is absolutely true no matter how much some may accuse us that it's just philosophy and empty words.

We are all used to living in a free country, even if we do not fully realise it or if we are very critical about the events taking place around us. To live in a free country is happiness. I say this with all responsibility, as a man who lived in very different conditions for more than 20 years.

Second. What should we do? We must fulfil all our promises or try to fulfil them. In the social sphere, unfortunately, we have a lot of poverty. Yes, we have increased average wage, many categories of people have greatly increased their incomes, but, unfortunately, the poverty rate remains significant and we must reduce it as much as we can. This is a vitally important task.

It is the same with unemployment. We have a reasonable figure for unemployment when compared with other European countries but we can make it even smaller, less than 5%. This concerns a vast number of people.

In the economy we must finally fulfil our promises, which we haven't been able to do so far: to significantly improve the investment climate and create a system of property rights protection. We are moving in this direction. I am not a supporter of dramatic statements but the current state of affairs is considerably better than it was. I worked in business for 10 years, so I know the situation. There's no need to idealise the 1990s: everything was extremely difficult then. But our progress has been slow, and I am not happy about it, as I have repeatedly said. We must continue working on it.

In the political sphere, everything is clear: it is necessary to implement the political reform that has already been adopted. If we implement it, we will make a huge leap in political development: we get a new quality of Russian democracy.

And, perhaps, my last point. I am ready to work on it and I will work on it if that is my destiny. But I cannot succeed alone; it should be a joint effort of our entire nation, and only then will we achieve success.

ANNA SCHNEIDER: Thank you.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You're welcome.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Mr President, thank you very much for answering our questions. I am sure that we were all happy to catch you at your word that you will have no objections to coming here for a live interview to all of us together or to each separately. So please come and join us on the air. Thank you.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Thank you.

I think that in this sense we all need to change our behaviour model a little. Of course, top leaders are top leaders but they must appear on the air, both on the major networks and the smaller TV channels. It's just refreshing and shows our life as it is, and most importantly, it stops us from losing touch from reality.

MARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA: Thank you and the best of luck to you.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Thank you.

JRL HOME