Berezovsky is an extreme example of the contradictions of Russia's move towards a capitalist democracy. On the one side he was one of the leaders of the new business class, while on the other he demonstrated the inability of this new business class, the so-called oligarchs in the 1990s, to subordinate themselves to the rule of law.

       What is Berezovsky's role in Russian history, what is your opinion?

       Berezovsky is an extreme example of the contradictions of Russia's move towards a capitalist democracy. On the one side he was one of the leaders of the new business class, while on the other he demonstrated the inability of this new business class, the so-called oligarchs in the 1990s, to subordinate themselves to the rule of law and indeed, if you like, to the interests of state development. Russia underwent a period of, highly contradictory development, creating the rudiments of a capitalist system from scratch. Berezovsky was able to exploit the legal and state weakness of the transition in a brilliant manner, but he was not able to create much. He is an exemplary case of what some people would call the "criminal oligarchs," who were interested less in business development than in using business to ensure a political role for themselves.

       Do you mean he was a self-made man or rather a minion of fortune?

       He was certainly a self-made man since it was clear that he had a certain genius to exploit economic and political opportunities to increase his short-term wealth. But he was not a builder, unlike even his erstwhile business partner Roman Abramovich (as we saw in the London courts last year during his ill-advised and catastrophic case against Abramovich). In other words, Berezovsky was different from other oligarchs, for example Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who were interested in the development of Russian business and indeed of an independent bourgeoisie if you like, representing certain political values. This world was alien to Berezovsky. Not for him the detailed and complex development of, say, an oil company; and instead he sought the quick profit by intercepting cash flows.

       So you mean there are different kinds of oligarchs in Russian business?

       Yes, there were two major types of oligarchs: there were the "criminal oligarchs," 'criminal' in inverted commas, who were not so interested in the development of business as such but were interested in quick gains, to gain wealth by exploiting the weakness of the state.

       Would you call Berezovsky and certain others in this group "criminal oligarchs"?

       Well "criminal" in inverted commas, he was an extreme example, but there were some others in the 1990s. I will not name names because in Britain the libel laws are very strict. On the other side there was what we could call more classical entrepreneurs like Khodorkovsky. The other sort is more business-centered oligarchs, who were interested in Russia's development as a modern, industrial capitalist state. Khodorkovsky is a key example of this second type.

       What in your opinion is Boris Berezovsky’s legacy?

       Ultimately his legacy is almost nil. In a paradoxical way the Putin system undermined not only the so-called criminal oligarchs but also destroyed the independent bourgeoisie oligarchs of the Khodorkovsky sort. Instead, the dominant model today is what we could call, again in inverted commas, "state oligarchs." These are people like Viktor Vekselberg, Abramovich and so on, who have to align themselves to the state, for good or ill. So Berezovsky is an example of the contradictions of the early stage of Russian post-Communist capitalist development. His later struggles against the Putin system were always undermined by the part that he had earlier played in creating just such a system.

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