OREANDA-NEWS. January 25, 2013. Question: Mr Medvedev, you were here in 2007, one year before you were elected President. The key point of your policy speech then (which we all remember) was “Freedom is better than unfreedom.” What phrase would you use now, six years on? What would you say to the West with the same succinctness or perhaps more expansively? What message would you send to the West today? 

Dmitry Medvedev: It is still true that freedom is better than unfreedom. But apart from freedom we also need economic prosperity, economic progress. So for all of us today, for all states, it is crucial to follow a steady path of development. Global economic growth is still facing problems following the financial economic crisis that erupted in 2008. Frankly, and it gives me a certain degree of satisfaction, I can say that the situation in our economy is fairly good when compared with the European Union or the problems that plague the US economy. But there are no grounds for complacency. We are all in the same boat, the economy is global and we must find a steady development course for the global economy. If the global economy is all right, then we are sure to cope with our domestic troubles, too, of which there are quite many in the Russian economy, although last year ended on a very optimistic note. We reported a 3.5% growth, which is well above the performance shown by the eurozone and the European Union. We have low unemployment, one of the lowest in the G20 countries. Our sovereign debt accounts for a very insignificant part of our gross domestic product: it is literally 3% compared with 100% or 70% in the case of some other countries. Our internal debt is small, too, so we have all the conditions for the country to develop.

Moreover, at this plenary meeting where Russia was the main guest, we described how our economy can develop. We were completely frank: we mentioned likely difficulties, presented three quite complex scenarios and also a fourth one, which we believe has an optimistic outlook and which has every chance of being fulfilled. The discussion was interesting and so were the proposals. It seems to me we have given the right impulse to our ties with the EU countries and generally with everybody who is attending the forum in Davos.

Question: Regarding yesterday’s plenary discussion. Coming back to the three scenarios with negative forecasts… You did not agree with them and offered a fourth, a positive one. Don’t you think this is our tradition when all such negative things are said about Russia by Russian functionaries, officials and businessmen in the West, and Davos is no exception? Weren’t your surprised to hear these negative forecasts from Russian mouths?

Dmitry Medvedev: No, I wasn’t. To begin with, these forecasts were prepared not in Davos but well before Davos forum and I was familiar with them, which is absolutely normal. I don’t dispute that there is a certain desire not only to demonstrate some positive points, as is usually done by investors looking for business in other countries but also to highlight our problems. But in today’s situation it seems to be an honest stand and then again we did not focus exclusively on shortcomings. Despite the three challenging forecasts the government also presented a fourth option, which was backed by many experts, including those in Davos, because it was a fair analysis of how things stand. There is one more thing I consider important for the Government and which I mentioned yesterday: these forecasts might perhaps only be models and unlikely ever to be implemented because they are extremes. But they give us much food for thought, telling us what not to do and how not to act and in this sense this seems to be a completely honest and open position.

Question: But 80% … when the participants of the Davos Forum voted that some aspects did not suit them, including how the country is being governed… Were you surprised? Did this offend you? How did you react when you saw the result of this vote?

Dmitry Medvedev: No, I was absolutely confident that everyone would vote for precisely this scenario, and that governance was not the only issue. Corruption, a really important issue in Russia, was also mentioned and, if you like, this fairly widespread issue is something that is discussed whenever there is an assessment of the situation in Russia. My stance is somewhat different. We must improve the system of governance, something that, incidentally, I mentioned in my speech, but to a greater not lesser extent we have to deal with many other things as well, such as for instance promoting competition. If we have competition we would have better governance, if we have competition there would then be considerably less corruption. That’s why I voted for the third scenario. But this does not mean that stereotypes, or widespread opinions for which people sitting in the auditorium vote, don’t exist. This is also normal.

Question: Are these stereotypes or has this negative base been prepared in advance for such voting results?

Dmitry Medvedev: I believe this reflects common perceptions of Russia's economic shortcomings, as well as specific problems that we must combat. In part, these are stereotypes.

Question: When experts say after your speech and after this vote that Government initiative and the political will of the state are needed to solve many of Russia's problems, and when these conversations are repeated in Davos year after year, how can you respond to this criticism?

Dmitry Medvedev: This remark is completely justified, it's not criticism. The government position, the stance of the President and the stance of the Government are needed in order to implement any economic line. This is absolutely correct and it applies to any country, not just Russia. And how can any problems be solved without the will of the state? This is normal.

Question: But they are reproaching you for this lack of will on the part of the state.

Dmitry Medvedev: No, no one is making any reproaches. Everyone is saying that specific changes could be implemented more quickly. They are saying that tougher reforms could be implemented. But, you see, this is the opinion of analysts. But there is also a practical policy and a real policy linked with the interests of a multitude of people and those of our entire country. First of all, we must think how to keep civic peace and how to avoid unjustified economic problems in implementing reforms. And in the second place we must think about conducting reforms as quickly as possible. I therefore believe that we are implementing a well-balanced line, and that we are not deviating from this road. But we are making only those decisions which are acceptable for our economy and our people.