This interview was published on the website of Deutsche Welle on December 30, 2008
 
Deutsche Welle: Mr. Yurgens, you head the Institute of Contemporary Development, the Board of Trustee’s of which is chaired by President Dmitry Medvedev. Summing up the achievements this past year of the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev, what would you highlight?
 
Igor Yurgens: In both domestic and foreign policy I can point to positive achievements that have been the result of Medvedev’s initiatives. There has been progress in judicial reforms. This might not be so evident as some of the changes are of a technical nature, but nonetheless judges are becoming increasingly independent and further removed from bureaucratic pressure.
 
The reforms launched by Medvedev under the slogan “Hands off business!” has also had an impact. A series of legislative initiatives have been developed to protect small and mid-sized business, some of which have even gone beyond the expectations of the entrepreneurs themselves.
 
Of course the Cacausus conflict was a big distraction, because there were big plans but attention was diverted to this conflict. And now the crisis is having a serious impact, as it is difficult to speak of liberalization when the liberals and entrepreneurs are running to the state for help.
 
I can point to the positive ideology and philosophy of Medvedev personally and his team in terms of the economy and reaction to the crisis conditions. And this also relates to foreign policy – in Cannes, Nice and then in Washington Medvedev spoke repeatedly about the danger of protectionism, about the need for concerted actions, about reasonable solutions for overcoming the crisis in coordination with developed nations.
 
- Your Institute prepared a report on the paths for democratizing Russia. But there was nothing there about the necessity of extending the length of the presidential term to 6 years and the State Duma’s to 5 years. Are these Medvedev’s own initiatives?
 
- I don’t know whose initiatives these are, but since he voiced them in the national address, then they are, probably, his initiatives. But they are not ours. The Institute of Contemporary Development did not consider this, because we focus on the institutions of power and democracy, not the terms and methods.

- Then why 6 years for the president and not 8 or 9? Why not a lifetime appointment? Because in the same manner you could pass such legislation through the State Duma about any term length?
 
- A lifetime term is clear a sign of authoritarianism or a monarchy, needless to say, and we couldn’t support that. Whether 6 years or 4, this difference doesn’t concern me. What is important is regular change and a competitive democratic model, that the elections be free and interesting.
 
- Would 8 years worry you?
 
- Well, I haven’t been confronted with that, but it seems excessive, as we have the possibility of two consecutive terms for the presidency, and 16 years would be too much. But let me repeat, it is not about the terms, but rather how it is carried out, that’s the first issue. Secondly, if you have this specific case in mind, then I would say that it has been put forward too hastily. In ideal circumstances this would be done through a national discussion and referendum. But I would like to emphasize that six-year terms, and even two consecutive terms, but with real competition and open elections, a clash of public opinion and political parties, is better than four-year terms but under the rug.
 
- Yes, but really, what sort of clash of opinions can we speak of today?
 
- That depends on us, on Russia. By the way, all of the institutions for this have been created or are being created or strengthened. So when they just criticize the authorities and the Kremlin, then they are just trying to relieve themselves of responsibility.
 
If Medvedev proposed an 8-year term, then society would with readily agree, and a 12-year term would be fine. So that is my answer to your question. The blame for everything that is going on should not be put on the political center, the Kremlin or the White House. This is, in part, our own fault, if we remain absolutely passive and apathetic to how our government is formed.

- Which forces today oppose changes in the direction of more openness and freedom?
 
- This goes back to what we were discussing earlier. It would be a gross simplification to say that it is the bureaucracy, those from the secret services and those backward nationalists. That is too small a group to take all the blame. The most important thing is the absence in society of democratic tendencies and movement in that direction.

- How independent is Dmitry Medvedev in making domestic policy decisions?
 
- As with any political figure selected by a certain group of people, he can never be self-sufficient. Was Bush independent of the group of people or ideology or capital that brought him to power? Will Obama be self-sufficient? Is Sarcozy self-sufficient? this is all quite interesting but these questions do not have simple answers. Medvedev, of course, is not self-sufficient, because he came to power under slogans of a certain ideology, and consequently he is at least beholden unto his own election promises.
 
- Today many politicians continue to say that the current economic crisis will affect Russia less than it does countries in the West. How true is this?
 
- Vladimir Putin says this because of the office he holds, but when experts say this I am willing to debate this point because our society has not been completely reformed yet. The country is rich with mineral resources, but this is what is taking the biggest hit, as demand for them and their prices are falling. This means that the institutions of development, which we called for in Medvedev’s election program, these institutions need to be quickly created, even during a time of crisis.
 
I agree with those who assert that our crisis will at least be no less difficult for us than for other countries. However, it will be less difficult than for analogous transitional economies in Central and Eastern Europe. I was recently in Riga, Tallinn and traveled through Hungary and I can tell you that it will not be easy for them.
 
Thanks in great part to the correct macroeconomic policies of recent years, we will survive this crisis with relatively less difficulties than the transitional economies of Central and Eastern Europe. However, it will be more difficult than in the developed democracies due to the presence of the institutions of which I spoke – private property, balance of power, diversified economy and competition.
 
Interviewed by Vladimir Sergeev