The Valdai Discussion Club is a liberal body. But it is above all a learning process, and thus invaluable. As long as the Valdai International Discussion Club continues with the participation of politicians from Russia and abroad, then it will remain an important channel of communication.

       Valdaiclub.com interview with Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent at Canterbury, member of the Valdai Discussion Club.

       This is a jubilee 10th session of the Valdai Discussion Club what we can anticipate to come out from it?

       My basic view is that the Valdai International Discussion Club is a forum of open discussion bringing together journalists, politicians, experts, Academic experts and others. And what we certainly get out of it is an open and free discussion. The cumulative effect of interacting with foreign experts, journalists, as well as Russian specialists and politicians leads to a mutual learning process.

       The Valdai Discussion Club, a liberal discussion club, has an important part to play in the intellectual life of the country like Russia, and indeed the world.

       Which appearance the Europe has in forming its identity?

       I’m not entirely sure that I understand what identity is. Basically identity is establishing a set of borders, boundaries, establishing who is in and who is out. And one has to fill these borders with content. This applies to Europe and this applies to Russia as well. At the moment these borders are permeable, the European Union is still enlarging. So identity is inevitably going to be flexible and expansive.

       There is a fundamental question – what is the European Union for? Is it for security, is it for social welfare, is a way of balancing in geopolitical situation against the United States or China or Russia or some other block? It has to be a long-term vision, a long-term perspective, at the moment it’s not clear whether it is contributing to the revival of Atlanticism, or genuine pan-European vision which will include Russia in its own terms.

       Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the Russian state has become stuck at the stage of transformation. How can Russia can find the way forward, and does it need to find the way forward?

       Russia has got stuck as some people call it a permanent transition. In many ways this is a condition in which Russia has been since the time of Peter the Great. One can say that Russia has been in this condition of as I call liminality between and betwixt for a long time, with particular intensity of the last two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union and evaporation of the Communist vision of the future.

       So what Russia is looking for today is a way out of this permanent transition, or, more specifically, out of the stalemate in which different ideas of the good life, of the vision of the future are balanced by other views, and none is becoming dominant or hegemonic.

       So again it’s not going to be easy because as we are talking about the theme of the Valdai Club this year of Russia’s identity. There is no single vision and I’m not sure any society has a strong vision for the future. Identities in the world are increasingly blurred and contested. That, perhaps, is a healthy thing.

       How does the Soviet past affect the process of forming identity of the modern Russia?

       The Soviet legacy is still hanging heavily above all in the social context, the sociological aspect, a vast mass of bureaucracy still hanging heavily over society, the security system has not been fully dismantled, it has a dangerously high influence on the society. It has not been brought effectively under social control. Is also applies to militia, now days known as the police. So this legacy of the Soviet Union is a very powerful one.

       What we simply have to do now is to continue the process of dismantling the negative elements of the Soviet experience. Of course it’s not entirely clear, what was negative, what is worth saving - for example, extended wellfareism, extended child care provision, or a huge military-industrial complex which still survives. So this issue of coming to face with the past is at the center of establishing the vision of the future today.

       We are witnessing the collapse of the multiculturalism in the West. What should Russia expect taking in the consideration its multinational population?

       I disagree that multiculturalism is collapsing in the West. Yes, is has been challenged by Angela Merkel, David Cameron. But multiculturalism is a very profound idea of unity in diversity, and indeed diversity in unity. What is dead is a dogmatic vision of multiculturalism. As you see, multiculturalism is endless opportunity for engagement and dialogue of different communities. Multiculturalism is effectively the only way forward in many countries in the West.

       As for Russia, multiculturalism applies to a lesser degree. On the one side Russia is an intensely multinational society by its very nature because of its composition and 150 native peoples, including Tatars, Chechens and many more. So Russia, I can say, is not simply multicultural, but a pluricultural country, made up by several peoples. So the idea of the nation state is always going to be very difficult.

       Which European values does Russia not share?

       I’m not sure I know the answer to this question. European values are never simply set in stone. They constantly change and evolve. In many ways Russia and Europe are engaged in similar discussion. Russia is of course part of Europe. While each country within the European family, such as Spain, Portugal, has its own distinctive peculiarities, yet they all share same values, in term of the value of human life. They have a communality which transcends peculiar differences.

       One of the values in Europe today is integration, and this is value not particularly shared by many people in Britain, especially in England. It is also the value, in which Russia is ambivalent, and also Turkey.

       What are the common values?

       The idea of common values is fundamental in post-Communist Russia, even though many traditionalists, nationalists within Russia today, just as in the United Kingdom, try to find differences, try to find separation and lack of common values. The fundamental value is the value of human life, the value of individual choice.

       There is of course a profound communality on neo-liberal values and relative types of governance. The question of common values is better articulated in terms of common challenges.

       What Russia does need is the strengthening of the rule of law, defense of property rights, free and fair elections. These levels of values are shared, but on the level of practices they are applied very differently.

       Does the West have to take part in forming a liberal-oriented identity of Russia in spite of the fact that such attempts are perceived by the Russian authorities as a threat to sovereignty and to the rise of anti-Western conservative rhetoric?

       Clearly when one country starts to lecture another about how it should or should not behave, this does indeed raise opposition of so called conservatives and traditionalists. All countries do participate in debates about others. Today we know that there are challenges in Hungary, Romania, even Italy. So Russia is no exception in being lectured. Recent legislation about non-traditional forms of sexual orientation has provoked a wave of concern in the West. Much of it is justified. In the Russian context such laws are applied in more brutal and savage manner. And I’m not sure this is good for the Russian society itself. The question is about toleration and diversity. No country is indeed an island of itself.

       Do you think that the Valdai forum did manage to influence the Kremlin’s policy-making? To what extent are the Russian authorities going to listen to expert opinion, including opinion of foreign investors?

       It’s very difficult to measure the impact of the discussions at the Valdai Club. I do think that by the process of osmosis perhaps, more specifically, in terms of articles, publications and so on, the discussions at the Valdai Club do affect policy in both ways.

       It is important to listen to the Russian point of view and vice versa. I don’t know how to measure the impact. We have spent a lot of time in the West trying to measure the impact of Academic and other debates. What I can say is that human contacts, intellectual debates are fundamentally important, and they do help to shape an agenda. As I said earlier, the Valdai Discussion Club is a liberal body, it does include of course many non-liberals, who have a huge critique of liberalism both in its political and economic manifestations. But it is above all a learning process, and thus invaluable. As long as the Valdai International Discussion Club continues with the participation of politicians from Russia and abroad, then it will remain an important channel of communication.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.