home > Speech development

Ilya Shablinsky: “It is more important for the Kremlin to take revenge on the whistleblower than to care about Russia’s reputation. Fifth column - remember these “faces” Ilya Georgievich Shablinsky biography

MOSCOW – How will the verdict against Alexei Navalny affect Russia’s international image and its relations with the West and the United States? What impact can the verdict have on the lives of Russian citizens and the future of the country? Deputy Head of the Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law at the Higher School of Economics, Professor, Member of the Human Rights Council under the President of the Russian Federation discusses this in an exclusive interview with the Russian Service of the Voice of America. Ilya Shablinsky .

Victor Vasiliev:Ilya Georgievich, how do you think the verdict of Alexei Navalny will affect Russia’s international reputation?

Ilya Shablinsky: There are no options here. Of course, this will have a purely negative impact. In fact, it is clear to everyone that one of the opposition leaders was sent to prison. But it's not only that. Navalny, who served as a whistleblower journalist, was a media outlet in his own right. And he fulfilled this role better than many other journalists, exposing specific people - government officials and business representatives close to the ruling group.

That is, he was both a politician and a journalist. Therefore, his conviction - even by those who did not go into the legal details - will be perceived as another step towards the establishment of a harsh authoritarian regime. We are now building such a regime step by step. I think this is no secret to anyone. It’s just that some part of our citizens are, in principle, satisfied that there will be an authoritarian regime, somewhat similar to the Soviet one. In any case, now, after this verdict, it will be very difficult to be a hypocrite. It will be difficult to talk about the triumph of law, about the rule of law, about the fact that the verdict was passed by a court that must be trusted.

V.V.: Yes, but many are completely unaware of the intricacies of the matter.

I.Sh.: Of course, this matter has a legal side, and we also need to delve into it. You need to read the indictment, the verdict, to see the very obvious absurdities there, starting, in fact, with the main charge of embezzlement. Waste of what - forests that did not belong to Navalny? Forests that this enterprise could not sell? I note that the company that Navalny invited helped sell part of the forest, and the money for the deal went to Kirovles. But it turns out that there is not enough money...

The accusation is completely ridiculous. What can we say - this is damage to the image of Russia. But as I understand it, the country’s leadership knew this in advance, and they gave up on it. Because there was a greater desire to take revenge on him. I want to emphasize that I take revenge not just as an opposition politician, a good speaker, but as a whistleblower. He acted as a journalist, revealing the dirty and vile aspects of the activities of very specific persons very close to power.

V.V.:Today, against the general background, there was a certain dissonance in the appeal of the prosecutor's office to the court with a request to reduce the walking time of the defendant in the Obornservis case, Evgenia Vasilyeva, from three hours to... two?

I.Sh.: This could cause homeric laughter if it weren't, in fact, so sad. I have absolutely no objection to Citizen Vasilyeva having the opportunity to walk, even in the fur coat that she bought during this time. But I think that the same loyalty should be demonstrated in relation to the same citizen Navalny. This is the first thing that comes to mind.

V.V.:And in relation to the mayor of Yaroslavl Evgeny Uralashov?

I.Sh.: With Uralashov, everything is also extremely unclear, and I have huge doubts about the fairness of the accusations brought against him. I think that Mikhail Prokhorov is right, and this is simply a planned action against a person who has irritated specific people in the ruling group. What is important here is that justice is decomposing, legal consciousness is decomposing. Millions of Russian residents believe this: the courts cannot be trusted, and the whole point is simply who has the real power. The right doesn't matter. There is no equality of citizens before the court. And this is demonstratively shown to citizens. Some people are outraged by this, and some are scared, and they conclude that laws are unnecessary. You need to pay someone to put in a good word for you, so that there is power behind you - either bandits, or the police with the FSB. That's about it. It's a terrible process.

V.V.: Could Navalny's sentence have any practical consequences for Moscow in terms of relations with the West and the United States?

I.Sh.: I guess not yet. Some statements will be made by the EU leadership. The US Ambassador has already made a corresponding statement that he considers this process political. Obviously, some more serious reaction can be expected later, when Russia really shows itself outside the principles acceptable to the EU and the Council of Europe. The fact is that in the coming months, another 15-17 verdicts are expected - in relation to the participants in the so-called “Bolotnaya case”, in relation to Udaltsov and Razvozzhaev, and those whom they will still be able to attract. They will all be in prison by the end of the year. All. I don’t know whether this will affect us, members of the Human Rights Council or not? Because we will still somehow react to events.

V.V.: The former head of the Human Rights Council, Ella Pamfilova, was summoned to the investigators today.

I.Sh.: Probably many of us will be called in the future too. The Council of Europe will have to somehow respond to events taking into account the status of Russia. Obviously, towards the end of the year or at the beginning of the next, when it will be clear that an authoritarian regime has been built in Russia similar to that in Egypt and Indonesia - with an ostentatious, imaginary multi-party system, a toy opposition, but in fact - with dictatorial power. We will talk about this openly. But, obviously, after some time, this will become impossible.

I cannot forget that experts - in general, completely neutral people who prepared their opinions on the Khodorkovsky case, on banking law, on corporate law - were summoned to the investigators and subjected to harsh interrogations. Where is this line beyond which you can no longer act freely, in accordance with your conscience, and beyond which something else is possible? This line is becoming increasingly difficult to define, that’s the thing.

Professor at the Higher School of Economics, head of the HRC Commission on Electoral Rights - about the peculiarities of the Russian electoral process, where there is no place for votes against the authorities

Novosibirsk, Magadan and Kostroma became centers of hope for fair elections this summer. However, in Novosibirsk and “Parnas” were not allowed to participate in the elections. In Kostroma, the chief of staff of the party, Andrei Pivovarov...

Why are these regional elections so important? Because in the State Duma elections in 2016, without collecting signatures, only those parties that are represented in regional parliaments will be able to take part. So the opposition is being slowed down already at distant approaches.

Ilya SHABLINSKY, professor at the Higher School of Economics, head of the HRC Commission on Electoral Rights, talks about the peculiarities of the Russian electoral process, where there is no place for votes against the authorities.

— In Novosibirsk, the Investigative Committee carried out a pre-investigation check on the statement of non-payment of remuneration for collecting voter signatures by the Novosibirsk branch of Parnas and falsification of signature sheets. How unusual is this situation for elections in Russia?

— We are talking about the collector Nikiforov, who brought false signature sheets. The headquarters of the Democratic Coalition immediately contacted the Investigative Committee with a statement that Nikiforov, having received 11.5 thousand rubles, brought false signatures. So what's going on? The Investigative Committee is opening a criminal case based on Nikiforov’s statement that those who involved him in collecting signatures did not pay him the remaining money under the contract - 7,500 rubles, and a case of fraud is being opened. I have never heard or seen such absurdity.

— The head of the headquarters of the Democratic Coalition in Novosibirsk, Leonid Volkov, believes that this is also intended to initiate a criminal case against him personally.

- Quite possible. Considering the fate that has now befallen Andrei Pivovarov in Kostroma. They want to put an end to the Democratic Coalition's election campaign with these criminal cases.

— How legal is it for the police to detain Volkov and members of his headquarters in the building of the regional election commission in Novosibirsk?

“I don’t see any administrative offense in their action.” This was their way of expressing their protest.


Video: “Open Russia”

— And the court fined them under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for disobedience to a lawful order of a police officer.

- This is a typical situation. For us, anything can be interpreted as disobedience. Do you remember, when there were mass arrests on the streets of Moscow, people did not offer any resistance at all, they just stood there - they were grabbed by the arms, dragged into the car, and after a couple of hours the court agreed that there was an administrative offense - resistance. After all, the removal of party representatives from the premises was a continuation of the fact that the headquarters of the Democratic Coalition disputed the arguments that were used to classify the signatures as unreliable. The Election Commission refers to the conclusion of the Federal Migration Service, which considers some signatures unreliable. The regional election commission simply hid behind the back of the Federal Migration Service. And the Federal Migration Service, apparently, cannot be objective. FMS employees do not comment or explain their actions. Their bias can only be challenged in court. But if the courts behave the same way, if the courts are completely dependent on the administration, then it becomes a vicious circle. We know what position the court usually takes. Most likely, he will make a decision that is beneficial to the regional administration.

— And then what should opposition parties do if they want to participate in the elections?

- In fact, opposition parties that oppose the authorities, and do not agree with them, are not allowed to participate in the legal political process. For this, all kinds of clues, nagging, formal and informal reasons are used.

That is, all efforts to legally participate in the electoral process are met with arbitrariness and cutting off the real opposition from the political process. In my opinion, this is very short-sighted and dangerous.

— Do you mean that this could sooner or later result in mass protests, as was the case after the 2011 State Duma elections?

- I don't know. After all, such things cannot be foreseen. I just see that to express protest sentiments, dissatisfaction, irritation (I am listing the feelings that I encounter among voters) there are no legal tools, no legal outlets.

There is a mood of irritation and protest in society, no matter what anyone says. And for such sentiments there are elections. If elections turn into a game, into a false performance, it means that these sentiments accumulate and do not receive any expression. I believe that those people who cut off real opponents from the legal political process like this are pushing society towards disaster; they don’t think about anything far and deep at all.

They simply have a loyal instinct - to prevent it. Although I admit that they may have received such a command from Moscow.

Direction from the center


Photo: Anna Artemyeva / Novaya

— Regarding the accusations against the chief of staff of the Democratic Coalition in Kostroma, Andrei Pivovarov, of unlawful access to computer information. Lyubov Sobol from Navalny's FBK wrote on her Facebook that last year, when she was collecting signatures for the Moscow City Duma elections, a person approached her, gained her trust and offered to check her data through the current FMS database for a small fee. Sobol refused. She writes: “That is, the technology in power is like this. First, they close the official database for checking passports on the FMS website, and when the oppositionists don’t sleep for days on end just to submit perfect signatures, they ingratiate themselves into trust and offer to “help” with the sole purpose of framing them for criminal charges.” It turns out that what happened in Kostroma is not a local technology, but a development of the center.

- It's like technology. Parties opposing the authorities, feeling extremely vulnerable, but trying to check how reliable the signatures they collected are, have no means of verification.

In the same Novosibirsk region, the head of the passport office, Andreeva, talked with Volkov and other guys from the headquarters of the Democratic Coalition. And she stated that the service for invalid passports, which is on the website of the FMS of Russia, has no legal force, you cannot appeal to it, and all the correct data is only in the FMS database. That is, it is impossible to verify the signatures you collected. Turning to the database, it turns out, is a criminal offense. And it turns out: if you cannot verify them, then those who offer you a poisoned gift - unreliable signatures - are in a win-win situation. You just need to wait for the moment when the election commission checks the signatures and discovers these false signatures. And then the party is caught and not allowed to participate in the elections. This is technology.

— Has it been used before?

- Yes, it was used before, and many people bought it. Somehow, Yabloko assemblers also encountered such a phenomenon. Let me remind you that in 1995 the Central Election Commission was responsible for registering the Yabloko party on the basis of a large number of false signatures discovered. And they later explained to me that these false signatures were obtained due to a large number of “toxic” collectors. Then the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered the complaint of the Yabloko party against the Central Election Commission, and a member of the Supreme Court ( A.I. Fedin. — EAT.) methodically, for three or four hours, examined the subscription sheets.

In court, a representative of Yabloko described everything as it is: that they were faced with such technology, but still most of their signatures were reliable, and that in general voters had the right to see their party on the ballot. The judge checked some small part, then waved his hand and said: “I must leave to make a decision.” And the Yabloko party was registered (see the text of the court decision). The decision of the Central Election Commission was reversed.

There was such a case. It was possible in 1995 because the Supreme Court was not very afraid of the president, and was not afraid of the presidential administration. At that time, the courts were not so dependent on the executive branch. Over the past 20 years, courts have literally become an appendage of the executive branch. The courts have turned into controlled institutions, hierarchically built. One of the most terrible consequences of the development of our political regime over the years has been the complete dependence of the courts on the executive branch.

Now they are using the widest arsenal of all sorts of tricks and technologies, just to recognize the signatures as unreliable, just to prevent the Democratic Coalition from participating in the elections. And since this is happening in three areas in parallel, and the methods are somewhat similar, I must say that this is a single plan.

— But everywhere there are different reasons. In Magadan, a graphologist was removed from the elections, who found the signatures to be fake.

- This is also complete nonsense. What does it mean to be a graphologist? Does he think these signatures were made with one hand? I don’t remember that three quarters of all signatures were rejected based on the graphologist’s conclusion, 19% were rejected by the graphologist, and another 5% did not pass the FMS check. You can invite hundreds of people who have signed and ask: “Is this your signature?”

— That's what Volkov did. People agreed to confirm that these were their signatures, but this did not change the decision of the Novosibirsk regional election commission.

“This once again suggests that there was a predetermined goal.” And all these technological innovations, tricks and gimmicks are just links in one chain that someone pulled. We have been saying for a whole year that let’s organize a fair political competition, we are not afraid of the opposition, we are not afraid of opponents, let’s do everything honestly... We discussed this at the meeting with the president; We discussed this at a meeting with Deputy Head of Administration Volodin, and everyone said approximately the same thing: we need fair political competition, and the government is not afraid of the opposition. Here is the answer. This is the reality.

— Volodin, in particular, said that “everything must be done to avoid the claims that arose in 2011, so that the formation of power takes place openly, legitimately and competitively.” At a recent meeting of the HRC Presidium with Volodin, you spoke about the need for fair elections. What did Volodin answer to this?

— We talked about two specific cases. About beating observers. In Balashikha and Zheleznodorozhny, this year and last. Observers are already being systematically beaten there. First, in September, Andrei Skorokhod was beaten right in the premises of the territorial election commission, and this year, in January, observers Stanislav Pozdnyakov and Dmitry Nesterov were beaten. Moreover, if Skorokhod was severely beaten: he had a broken nose, a severe nosebleed, a broken tooth, and a chest abrasion, then Pozdnyakov and Nesterov were beaten more severely. They were kicked, each beaten by four people. As a result, Pozdnyakov began to have internal hemorrhage, a day later he was taken to the Sklifosovsky Institute, had an operation, and had his spleen removed. The guy became disabled.

The participants in the beating of Andrei Skorokhod were immediately identified, and the suspect and accused were immediately identified - presumably a certain Varyagov. Here is what is said in the latest decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case, addressed to Skorokhod: “During the inspection, it was established that Skorokhod and Varyagov were in the territorial election commission of Balashikha, and a quarrel occurred. During the quarrel, Varyagov beat citizen Skorokhod, after which he left the premises.” Further, the bodies of inquiry come to the conclusion that the actions of citizen Varyagov do not constitute a crime under Art. 111 and art. 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (moderate harm to health), but the corpus delicti provided for in Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (minor harm to health). This category of cases is a matter of private prosecution and is initiated exclusively by justices of the peace. Therefore, there are grounds to terminate the criminal case.” Dot. All. A specific culprit has been identified, the harm caused to the observer has been established, and the criminal case is closed. I tell Volodin about this. He doesn’t comment on it... I’m talking about another criminal case, about Pozdnyakov and Nesterov... Volodin promises to look into it.


Ilya Shablinsky (center) at a meeting of the Presidium of the Human Rights Council. Photo: HRC press service

As a result: on July 14, the Chairman of the Human Rights Council, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Fedotov, received a letter from the Investigative Committee, which, in my opinion, is completely unclear: “It has been established that the Second Directorate for Investigation of Particularly Important Cases has opened a criminal case on the fact of falsification of voting results, the investigation continues. The investigative department for the city of Balashikha has not completed the procedural check on your appeal due to the request for the necessary documents from the territorial election commission, police, prosecutor's office and court. The head of the Investigation Department for the Moscow Region has been instructed to take control of the investigation process.”


Response from the Investigative Committee to the head of the Human Rights Council Fedotov

Two observers were beaten, one was crippled. They discovered massive stuffing of ballot boxes; they filmed the entire stuffing procedure. And here is the answer. And this despite the fact that this beating case had witnesses. I have testimony from a witness to the beating of Natalya Osipova. I talked to her. She said that she saw among the attackers a certain Yegor Dolger, deputy chairman of the so-called Youth Election Commission. He was caught on camera, he participated in other episodes with people who stuffed ballots. But the police do not pay attention to these words. This Dolger was interviewed only as a witness. ( more about the activities of Yegor Dolger in the elections in Balashikha 2014 -— Note ed.).

— What is the “Youth Electoral Commission”?

“Judging by the specific actions, this is a group of young people who were supposed to provide force support and force cover for the people carrying out the stuffing. This can be seen in the video footage. They made noise when observers pointed out that a man was holding a stack of ballots and was approaching the ballot box. Some made noise, while others gradually tried to ensure the unimpeded departure of these throwers from the site. ( The Youth Election Commission of the Moscow Region was created by the decision of the Election Commission of the Moscow Region dated April 11, 2014 No. 163/2273-55: “The main purpose of the formation of the Youth Election Commission of the Moscow Region is to assist the Election Commission of the Moscow Region in activities to improve the legal culture of young and future voters, training election organizers, organization of elections and referendums in the Moscow region, formation of conscious interest of young and future voters in the management of state and local affairs through elections, referendums. — EAT.)

That is, they are now opening criminal cases against Pivovarov in Kostroma on a very flimsy basis: that he seemed to be trying to check the authenticity of the signatures... They are opening some kind of fraud case in Novosibirsk after representatives of the Democratic Coalition headquarters themselves accuse the collector of false signatures... And here people are beaten, disabled - and zero, and nothing.

Let me remind you that I directly reported to the President about the case of Andrei Skorokhod last fall, at a meeting with the Human Rights Council. I told you under what circumstances Skorokhod was beaten, and that the culprits had already been discovered and were easy to identify. I handed over these materials from hand to hand to the president. Members of the Human Rights Council saw this, and everyone who watched this broadcast saw this. The result was what you just heard - the initiation of a criminal case was refused. Dot. Denied. You can contact the magistrate. Well, what else?!

This is the decomposition of the state

— You talk about what happened at the polling stations in the Moscow region to the deputy head of the administration for internal policy, you talk about it to the president of the country, and then in response you receive such a reply from the Investigative Committee. It turns out that it is beneficial for the authorities for the elections to be exactly like this, so that in fact there are no elections.

— In general, this is exactly the impression. They made an imitation, a game out of the elections. It is not always possible to distinguish between local arbitrariness and some truly global plan, which is sanctioned by the presidential administration. I can assume that the system of stuffing in the areas of Balashikha and Zheleznodorozhny is a local creativity, organized by local heads of administration who needed a manual city council. And the observers were beaten, of course, not on command from the presidential administration.

But these people, I would say, the local punks, have already realized that they can act with impunity. Both local governors and heads of district administrations have already realized that they can do whatever they want. That they can falsify, draw any result with complete impunity, and if anything happens, use force.

The footage filmed by Nesterov and Pozdnyakov shows that women with a stack of ballots were hovering around the ballot box; they hid this stack of ballots, but one of them eventually gave it away. And the police were at a loss, they didn’t know what to do, because the observers demanded that they take action, and the police had a different attitude: not to interfere with the local commission in any way. Although the attempted throw-in was completely obvious.

In fact, this is scary, it is called “decomposition of the state.” Decomposition. That is, initially the governor or head of administration gives instructions to obtain a certain result. Everything that interferes with this result must be suppressed, including physically, contrary to any law. These young people who beat Nesterov and Pozdnyakov understood that they would go unpunished, that the state would protect them. Volodin, discussing this, said that “you should not get the impression that we are protecting such people.” Nice phrase. But in the end, this is exactly the impression that is created.

— The law on countering extremist activities also talks about responsibility for preventing citizens from exercising their voting rights, coupled with violence or the threat of their use. Do you remember any cases of application of the law on extremist activities in the history of elections?

- No, I don’t remember that. When the composition of the article was formulated, it was assumed that there might be some radical groups that would influence voters and interfere with the holding of elections. But it was hardly thought that we would talk about purposeful actions of election commissions and the gangs of thugs supporting them. What happened in Balashikha and Zhukovsky falls under this article. Because there was definitely the use of violence.

Churov? No, Volodin

— Ilya, I heard that the HRC Commission on Electoral Rights is going to contact Churov about the situation with the Democratic Coalition in Kostroma, Novosibirsk and Magadan. What's the point of contacting Churov?

- I changed my mind. I think we will turn to Volodin. I didn’t have anything to do with Churov and probably wouldn’t want to. I really think it's pointless. But we still talked with Volodin, and he promised us something, and he explained something to us. Moreover, Lena, you know where decisions are made. We will write such a letter, and perhaps it will be an open letter, where we will express our attitude to what is happening with the registration of parties in the elections before the Unified Voting Day.

— Do you think this letter will be useful to Volodin?

- We must express our attitude. And we must send the letter to the address where decisions are made.

— Yes, we know where decisions are actually made. But they will answer that Churov makes legal decisions.

- What he answers formally may not matter much. We will remind him of our informal agreements, informal promises. This may be more important. There may not be a legally significant result, I am aware of this. We were just talking about ships. But I’ll turn to Volodin. Maybe this will be the first and last appeal. I admit it.

— Why the last one?

- We'll see the reaction. Everything depends on the reaction.


Photo: Anna Artemyeva / Novaya Gazeta

— As a result of the 2011 State Duma elections, thousands of people took to the streets. All these years, the Duma worked as a “mad printer”; it showed itself to be an absolutely repressive apparatus of the state. People felt the results of the activities of this Duma as never before. And so it seems to me that the 2016 elections will not be peaceful, if they happen at all.

— I think that we will witness an unprecedented propaganda impact of the largest federal television channels throughout the summer of 2016. This time I expect the most active use of super-patriotic rhetoric and accusations against enemies of the state. Since government officials at various levels are really afraid of a popular reaction in the wake of an obvious deterioration in the economic situation and an obvious political crisis. After all, in 2011 there were even discussions on different TV channels, there were discussions, and there was no crisis... Future elections are a truly difficult test for the country. It’s hard to say how people will ultimately react. Our society is divided... I am afraid that to maintain the status quo (unfortunately, we have to admit that this is precisely the goal of the current government) will require much more serious and tough means.

We now see that those who really oppose the authorities are simply not allowed to participate in the elections. In 2016, we can expect approximately the same pattern of behavior. The main goal of initiating criminal cases against Volkov and Pivovarov is to intimidate. Intimidate them so they don't get in at all.

When the initiation of criminal cases against opponents is used during the election campaign for the most insignificant reasons, this indicates the purpose of intimidation.

The current government, both at the regional and federal levels, is afraid of any non-standard, unfamiliar, unusual political initiatives. I believe that the current crisis, both economic and political, can only be resolved through dialogue. It may take a long time to resolve, slowly, but people should be able to express all points of view. The same points of view must be represented in parliament. And on the basis of dialogue, positions can be gradually developed.

There is another point of view: that there is no dialogue, an authoritarian regime, opponents must be suppressed by all means. Now, at least, opponents are still given the floor. That is, you can talk, but judging by what we see, it is no longer possible to participate in elections. The desire to maintain the status quo at any cost is a catastrophic mistake by the authorities.

Member of the Russian Presidential Council for Human Rights Ilya Shablinsky: “It’s enough for Putin to speak disapprovingly of Jews - what will happen here...”

Ilya Georgievich Shablinsky was born on April 29, 1962 in Moscow. Graduated from the All-Union Legal Correspondence Institute. Candidate of Philosophy, Doctor of Law. Since 1987, he has participated in the human rights movement and in the organization of free trade unions. Since 1991 in public service. In 2000–2004 worked as an adviser to the legal department, head of the Information and Analytical Department of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation. Since 2004, Professor at the Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law of the Faculty of Law of the Higher School of Economics, leading researcher at the scientific and methodological center of the UNESCO Department of Copyright and Other Intellectual Property Rights. Member of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights under the President of the Russian Federation.

Recently, Ilya Shablinsky clashed live on television with State Duma Deputy Speaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky. In the heat of the discussion about the construction of a US naval base in the Ukrainian Ochakov, the leader of the LDPR, known for his brutal temper in disputes with opponents, called the Ukrainians “brainless”, accused other participants in the program of betraying the national interests of Russia, promised to bomb the Americans, and at the same time hang the participants discussions after the accession of Ukraine to Russia. When Zhirinovsky cursed at the Ukrainian journalist and political scientist Yanina Sokolovskaya working in Russia, Shablinsky turned to the presenter Yevgeny Popov: “In fact, it is impossible to continue any discussion in such a tone. It’s not normal when one participant allows himself to insult another.” In response, Zhirinovsky burst into a hysterical tirade with a clearly anti-Semitic flavor: “Who gave you the right to condemn me? Who are you anyway? Puppy! Ilya Grigorievich... (in fact, Shablinsky’s patronymic is Georgievich. - Ed.). Do you see? Not Russian! A Russian wouldn't talk like that. If only there were no Russia and Russians there - that’s your task!.. Ilya Grigorievich! With these Ukrainian fascists... You stood there next to them. On topic: Ukraine, USA, North Korea! Don’t touch me, otherwise I’ll throw you out of the studio.” The presenter had to work hard to calm down the raging politician.

Dear Ilya, let's start the conversation with your last name. Does it come from the Ukrainian word “shabla” (“saber”)?

Shablinsky is the surname of my father Georgy, it comes from the Polish word “shabla”, although in Ukrainian it sounds the same. Slavic, Jewish and German blood flows in my veins. On my father’s side I have Slavic roots and a Polish surname; my paternal ancestors, as far as I know, are buried near Poznan. My mother has Jewish roots: her father, Mikhail Iosifovich Zak, was born in Sevastopol in 1900. He lived to be 91 years old and told me in detail about his youth. In 1920, my grandfather was mobilized into Wrangel’s army, where he fought on the side of the whites for a year. He took part in the defense of Perekop: they repelled the attacks of the Makhnovists, then the main forces of the Reds, and then were forced to retreat. Then, together with the remnants of Wrangel’s army, he was forced to leave Russia on one of the last ships. For about a year, he and his friend tried to somehow get settled in Turkey. But they didn’t take root there, so they returned back, and my grandfather joined the Red Army. The fact of his service in Wrangel’s army was hidden all his life, and I learned about it from my grandfather only a year before his death.

- You also mentioned German roots...

My grandmother Antonina Yakovlevna Steiner was Russian on her mother’s side, and German on her father’s side, her father was the Russified German Yakov Ivanovich Steiner. Grandmother in the 1970s corresponded with her half-brother and sister, who managed to leave for France in 1919. She met my grandfather in 1938. The Jew and the half-Russian, half-German woman liked each other, but they only had time to communicate for three months - the grandmother was arrested by the NKVD after a denunciation. She ended up in prison and was given three years. A bit for those times. But she went to prison already pregnant, and in 1939 my mother was born in the camp.

- How much do you feel like a Jew and have you experienced anti-Semitism towards yourself?

I feel like a Russian with Jewish roots, so for me the Jewish theme is close and understandable. As for anti-Semitism, I experienced it to the fullest. As I already said, I have a lot of blood, but in my phenotype there is nothing left of my Slavic ancestors. For example, for TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov it’s somehow different, but for me it’s the same. I think it did me good. I look like a grandfather who had a heroic past. Everyday anti-Semitism has very deep roots: they are in family upbringing, in morals, in hostility to a different appearance. In our class there was a guy with a Jewish surname, Zhenya Roizen - a blue-eyed, reddish blond. He did not look like the Jew that was usually imagined in the environment where I studied, so he was not noticed. And I felt a special attitude “to the fullest”, and I had to fight. But only those I could handle.

You are now talking about everyday anti-Semitism. But there was also state anti-Semitism, the apogee of which came in the late period of Stalin’s reign, when the famous “Doctors’ Plot” arose, and Jews began to be called “rootless cosmopolitans.” What do you think caused this in the post-war period? Was it necessary to find an internal enemy in order to blame the Jews for the poor living conditions of their people?

I think the reason is a little different. We need to remember how the State of Israel was born. This is a paradox that should be remembered. The emergence of Israel was greatly facilitated by the support of Stalin. Even Truman took less part in this, and Joseph Vissarionovich, through Gromyko, exerted some pressure, because he saw Israel as a potential satellite of the USSR in the Middle East, a potential socialist state. I think that many of the creators of the State of Israel also thought quite socialistically and were going to build socialism, but not Stalinist one. And they wanted to maintain normal relations with the United States. A few years later, already in 1950, Stalin became disillusioned with this experiment, and since by that time he already had a completely vile character, he was aging, becoming more and more angry, he began to take this anger out on the Jews. This was felt by his satraps, for example Malenkov and his comrades, who may not have been anti-Semitic at all, but it was they who “launched” this “doctors’ work,” which they themselves later shut down. However, it turned out that they were in the flow, having guessed the leader’s mood. I think that for some time Stalin had certain hopes for Israel, and therefore in 1948 the Soviet leadership secretly took the side of the young Jewish state and supported it with old military equipment. But later Stalin abruptly changed his position. By that time, he was no longer angry only with Israel: he, for example, suspected both Dimitrov and Tito of all mortal sins. As a result, he had a desire to take out his anger on Israel and the Jews, which he did. This is my explanation of that situation.

And if we remember the 1970–1980s, which we today call the Brezhnev stagnation, then even then there was an unspoken percentage norm for the admission of Jews to universities and other restrictions for Jews - in particular, in matters of education and career growth. What caused this?

These questions, in general, have already been answered a long time ago. I think there were several reasons, although the main ones are two that are on the surface. The first is connected with the very existence of the State of Israel, towards which, both under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, a suspicious and then hostile attitude remained. And Jews - mathematicians, physicists, etc. - were potential citizens of this hostile state. The second reason is also clear: this is everyday anti-Semitism of the middle and lower echelons of the nomenclature towards those who were Jewish according to their passport or did not look like a Slav or had Semitic facial features. They simply had a hostile attitude, and this hostility is traditional for a certain layer of people. But it is quite wide - in Russia, Ukraine, Moldova. I don’t know how things are in the Asian republics, but in the Caucasus anti-Semitism has also received a certain development. This all matured in families, and the official condemnation of Israeli policies only complemented and fueled this upbringing.

But even today Russia has not freed itself from this relic. You are certainly aware that there have recently been anti-Semitic statements by Peter Tolstoy and Vitaly Milonov. What do you think: did they just let out what was in their subconscious, or is there a deeper meaning here?

I think that you are right: it was what was in the subconscious that came out. That is, there remains a nomenklatura layer in which hostility towards Russians with Jewish roots is alive. She torments them, she strives to get out. But Tolstoy, Milonov and others like that, who have not yet spoken out, although they would very much like to speak out on this matter, know that the top leadership - Putin, Lavrov, Volodin - does not welcome this. Bye. The main thing is that the President of the Russian Federation does not demonstrate anti-Semitic feelings in any way, which perhaps he does not have. I think that in Putin’s family, in Putin’s courtyard environment, such a feeling was not brought up. The middle-level nomenklatura tries not to violate the unspoken rules established at the very top - by the first person and those who are next to him, but these feelings are alive in them: just give a little slack and a reason. For example, it will be enough for Putin to utter a couple of disapproving words about the State of Israel or about any Russians of Jewish origin - what will happen here! You will immediately hear a lot of opinions on this topic from deputies and other politicians.

My next question is related to the protest movement in the Russian Federation, which resulted in unauthorized actions that took place on April 26 and June 12 this year. Can we say that young people have woken up and shown themselves as some kind of potential force?

Yes, there is some slight progress here, and sociologically this can probably be measured. A certain layer of youth has emerged that is irritated by the status quo. These people were born under Putin, under whom they may still have to live for 10–15 years. They began to note the falsity of official propaganda. Yes, most of them do not watch TV, but some still compare propaganda installations with information received from the Internet. And many began to perceive the state’s position as a deception. For example, the state says that it cares about small and medium-sized businesses, but what do you say to people who have lost their real estate in Moscow, or to farmers and truck drivers? Young people noticed that there was almost no media left that could criticize the authorities. In South Korea, large numbers of students demonstrated in support of democracy. We have such students - a clear minority. But they still increased - 5–10–15%. How do I feel about this? I teach several subjects in three groups at the Higher School of Economics, and during classes, while discussing some topics, I suddenly began to hear radical speeches. They tell me: “With your conservative consciousness, you don’t understand that only revolution will save Russia.” I’ve already heard this twice or three times over the past year from different guys with the silent sympathy of part of the audience. Previously, in the 15 years that I have been teaching, such speeches have not been heard, but here they tell me: revolution. I begin to explain that various areas need to be reformed, for example, changing the judiciary, but people still object to me.

Not long ago, Sergei Udaltsov was released. Considering his statement about the possibility of a tactical alliance with Alexei Navalny, could this circumstance somehow affect the course of the presidential elections?

I give Udaltsov his due, because he spent several years in prison, and, in my opinion, for no reason: there was some kind of strange provocation, I saw these footage. I have certain doubts regarding his political activities: Sergei needs to find himself in the current spectrum. Yes, he seemed to have the role of an exponent of the ideas of the new “left”, which should replace the old ones. But in fact, for a long time now we no longer have “left” and “right”, as Navalny spoke about, but there are two large camps. Representatives of the first say that the West is to blame for everything and all hope lies in the state. Another position is this: we ourselves are to blame for everything, and all hope is for the revival of business and democracy. This is something like this, and Udaltsov needs to find his place. The main ideological justification for the current political regime is to protect the country from external threats, while internal difficulties must be somehow overcome. This is the position not of Tsarist Russia, but of Stalinist Russia. This is also the ideology professed by the current Communist Party of the Russian Federation. What position will Udaltsov take? Don't know. But once he was ready to fight for democracy.

- There are almost no free media left in Russia. Will the government continue to tighten the screws on the eve of the elections?

Yes, I am afraid that the authorities will tighten the screws and increase pressure on the media.

In this regard, let's talk about what I would call “television propaganda as a weapon of mass destruction.” Not long ago, many television viewers witnessed a skirmish, which was staged not for the first time on the air of the 60 Minutes program by Vladimir Zhirinovsky. You became one of the “victims” of his aggression. Does he really express the position of a large number of people, or is he a person with a not entirely healthy psyche?

I want you to remember the words of Boris Nemtsov, who had a “complicated relationship” with Zhirinovsky: “Vladimir Volfovich is a very cunning and quite intelligent person.” On the Rossiya-1 channel in the 60 Minutes program he has one image, and if he talks in the studio of the Ekho Moskvy radio station, then it is completely different. These are, as it were, two different people - Zhirinovsky is trying to work with different groups of the electorate. He invented his own style of political monologue - a kind of malicious clownery. No one but him masters this style. For the “60 Minutes” program, Zhirinovsky chose plebeian cave chauvinism: evil “creature Poles”, Ukrainians, etc. On the “Echo of Moscow” radio, on the contrary, he criticizes the authorities. Unlike most of the current State Duma deputies, Zhirinovsky is a self-made man: he is a self-made man and has found his niche. But sometimes Vladimir Volfovich definitely gets carried away. For example, he can behave extremely aggressively towards women. This is where it needs to be put in place. This simply cannot be tolerated. Although something else is more important here: there is an electoral layer that is close to Zhirinovsky, screaming until the aorta ruptures that everyone around Russia is reptiles and creatures. And this layer is quite wide. This is scary.

This gentleman is often invited as an expert on such programs as “60 Minutes” and “The Right to Vote.” He invariably finds himself “on the other side of the barricades,” that is, where Russian liberals, Ukrainian or European guests are usually located. He can hardly be called a Russophobe, but still some overly patriotic citizens may have such a suspicion. An intellectual externally and internally, able to defend his point of view without rudeness and hysterics.

Today the hero of our report is Ilya Georgievich Shablinsky, a professor at the Higher School of Economics, a member of the Russian Presidential Council for Human Rights. In fact, he became famous after a clash with Vladimir Zhirinovsky live on one of the television programs, when he asked him not to insult the participants in the discussion ( in particular, a Ukrainian journalist). Few people can withstand the pressure of the leader of the Russian liberal democrats. Shablinsky at that moment behaved with dignity.

short biography

The boy Ilya was born on April 29, 1962 in the capital of the Soviet Union. Has Russian, German and Jewish roots. After graduating from high school, he entered and successfully studied at a correspondence law institute. Now a candidate of philosophical sciences and a doctor of legal sciences.

At the height of perestroika, he actively supported the nascent human rights movement in the country and the emergence of independent trade unions. Since 1991 he has been in public service.

At the beginning of the 2000s, he worked as an adviser to the legal department, and also headed the information and analytical department of the Central Election Commission. Since 2004, Ilya Georgievich began teaching at the Faculty of Law of the Higher School of Economics, and then took the place of leading researcher at the UNESCO Department of Copyright. Member of the Council for the Development of Civil Society under the President of the Russian Federation.

Supporter of the return of Crimea to Ukraine and the cessation of support for the DPR and LPR.

Shablinsky thinks so...

  • As soon as Putin says something wrong about the Jews, it’s hard to imagine what will happen!.. Subconscious, everyday anti-Semitism will immediately burst out. And not only from the side of deputies - public people, but also from those who support them in this regard.
  • The state says that it cares about small and medium-sized businesses, but look at what is actually happening.
  • There are almost no independent media left in the country called Russia. Almost no one can criticize the authorities without serious consequences for themselves. And that's wrong.
  • For a long time now we have neither “left” nor “right”, but there are two large camps. Representatives of the first blame the collective West for all troubles, while representatives of the second are confident that we ourselves are to blame, and all hope is only for the revival of private business and democracy.

  • Zhirinovsky is a versatile person. On the Rossiya channel he tries on one image, and on the Ekho Moskvy radio station he tries on another. He cunningly and skillfully focuses on the audience, and knows how to act in a given situation. No one else can work in his style of “evil” clownery.
  • It’s funny when a politician with the middle name Volfovich fiercely defends the rights of Russians.
  • For us, anything can be interpreted as disobedience. The opposition is not protected from the arbitrariness of the authorities.
  • In the mid-90s, the Supreme Court was not very afraid of the president and his administration. After about 10 years, the courts literally became an appendage of the executive branch.
  • They made an imitation out of the elections, a game in which it is difficult to determine where the locals were overzealous and where the order came from above.
  • The regime's desire to maintain the existing state of affairs at all costs is its catastrophic mistake.
  • People should freely exchange opinions, should freely express points of view.

We also recommend

Loading...Loading...