In an interview with Forbes Talk, Narusova told why it is important for her to remain a senator, what are the moods of her colleagues in the House, and is there any chance that she will leave the country.
Lyudmila Narusova is a member of the Federation Council, the widow of Anatoly Sobchak, the first mayor of St. Petersburg and one of the co-authors of the 1993 Constitution, the mother of journalist Ksenia Sobchak, president of the Anatoly Sobchak Foundation. From 1996 to 2000, she was a State Duma deputy from the Our Home is Russia movement. She was first elected to the Federation Council in 2002, since 2016 she has been a senator continuously, her current term expires in 2026. Narusova is known for criticizing high-profile bills. In particular, she opposed the hasty, in her opinion, the adoption of amendments to the law on rallies in 2012, against raising the retirement age in 2018, in 2020 she was one of three senators who abstained during the vote on the law on amendments to the Constitution. Narusova did not support the use of the Russian army in the DPR and LPR in February 2022, the bill “on discrediting the army” and was the only senator who spoke out against the introduction of electronic subpoenas.
“Let there be one voice”
“I, especially recently, have become even more convinced that I am doing the right thing (remaining as a senator), although it is very difficult, it is very destructive internally: to be an accomplice – and to be aware of this – of the chaos in lawmaking that is happening around you . You understand and everyone understands that these are anti-constitutional laws, that they violate the fundamental human rights enshrined in the constitution. This is especially painful for me, because it was my husband, Anatoly Sobchak, who wrote this part (of the Constitution) – about human rights, about the fact that a person born in our country cannot be deprived of citizenship, that a person has the right to his beliefs, has the right to speak openly. And when all this narrows down to almost a certain point, but at the same time it is declared in the Constitution, this is very destructive. Nevertheless, I think: let there be one voice, but it must be heard. Not in order to change the vote, it is almost impossible, but at least for herself. I don’t want to lose myself. And secondly – let it sound pathetic – for his memory, because to vote for some bill that infringes on the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined in the Constitution, for me personally, is to betray him.
On the mood among legislators
“I communicate (with colleagues) not only in the meeting room. For example, after one of the last such noisy votes, my speech against, I enter the elevator to go up to my office. The meeting was over, everyone was leaving, the elevator was full, we were standing close to each other, and one person who was standing closest to me found my hand somewhere below and shook it tightly so that no one would see. It made a big impression on me. That is, he seemed to show that he agrees with me – he shakes my hand in such a way, you know, like a man. Well, why were you silent? And I don’t think there are many such people.
This is the Joseph Prigogine effect. It seems that those people who speak at Luzhniki and at all, at all on-duty state events in support, actually think differently. And now we have seen and heard it all (meaning the audio recording of a conversation that appeared on the Internet, supposedly between Joseph Prigozhin and billionaire Farhad Akhmedov criticizing Russia’s actions in Ukraine – Forbes). There are also people there who understand, who have some remnants of conscience and honor, but fear is the worst thing I see in our parliament. Some kind of overwhelming fear. People are afraid, afraid to express their opinion, support – even to those who can talk about it. And this concerns, I think, not only the Federation Council, it concerns our entire society. Therefore, when sociological polls show almost 70% support (“special operations”*), I don’t believe it.”
About a possible departure from Russia
“No never. First, I have a sad experience. In 1997, at the height of the persecution of my husband for completely far-fetched reasons, I took him to France, to Paris for treatment (we are talking about accusations of abuse of office, two years later the case was closed for lack of corpus delicti – Forbes). I then remembered the phrase of Yevgeny Yevtushenko: “Why are you, motherland, with boots in my face”? Living with a sense of exile, and a voluntary one at that, is very difficult. To observe from there what is happening in the country and what those ideas that Sobchak had are turning into. I remember how, more than 20 years ago, but this is very relevant, he wrote that it was painful to see how democratic Russia – he thought then that it was – was turning into a police state. I very often re-read this article of his and think: “Was he a prophet or what? How could he see it?
Living with the feeling that you can do nothing from there – I experienced it, so when the question arose about this (about leaving), I had no doubts. Moreover, as I have already said, I understood that even in these conditions my duty, my duty is to still preserve at least a little, at least a small, small territory of those ideals for which my husband fought. Yes, I am too”.
Those who left – betrayed the country?
“No! This is a matter of personal choice, sometimes personal security, sometimes not wanting to kill, as with those men who left the mobilization. But this is not a betrayal of the country, even from a legal point of view. The law clearly states what a betrayal of the motherland is: reporting spy data, and so on and so forth, there is a list. Therefore, when my colleagues in the Duma and in the Federation Council stigmatize (Russians who have left) and say that some tough and decisive sanctions should be applied to traitors to the motherland, I always answer them: “There is no need to stick labels, because betrayal has absolutely statutory offense.” Immoral or not immoral (to leave) is not for us to judge.
This is the first, and the second – I have been living for a long time and remember our history well. I remember very well when a meeting of milkmaids and tractor drivers made a decision, they say, we did not read Solzhenitsyn’s books, but he should be expelled from the Soviet Union as a traitor. Similarly, Lenin Prize laureates Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya were expelled from the country for supporting Solzhenitsyn. It was believed that they did not support the party line, and therefore they were traitors. And today – not so long ago, in my opinion, in the fall I was present at the opening of the monument to Galina Vishnevskaya, we were very close with them. And so I stood, looked at the officials who were there, who loudly from the stands shout that it is necessary to deprive the citizenship of traitors. And I thought: it might turn out so that in a few years, God willing, you and I will open a monument to those whom you now stigmatize as traitors.
This is the hardest part, because it seemed that we had already flipped through these pages. And what, now we are returning again and becoming like a collection of milkmaids and tractor drivers who do not know, do not understand, do not want to understand, but traitors need to be branded? As Pushkin wrote: “Are we going back to those years?”
On the tacit travel ban for officials
“We have restrictions, it is not recommended to travel to unfriendly countries. (In the event of such a trip) I must notify (Speaker of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko). And since recently, unfortunately, the reason for visiting European countries, in particular Germany, is medical considerations, I provide documents stating that I have scheduled consultations there. In principle, I can just sit down and leave, but this will be a violation of some internal regulations. I have not seen this document in writing, but so the rumor says. There is no strict ban, but they are not recommended to unfriendly countries. And I would like to ask, what kind of friends do we have now? The successes of our foreign policy and diplomacy are obvious.”
“Thin Ice of Citizenship”
“We can go back to the worst. And to return to the best … No. I think that these must be tectonic movements in society itself. Not in power, not in the Duma, not in the Federation Council – in society. And while waiting for them is very difficult. I observe both the fear that I spoke about and some kind of numbness. One gets the impression that society is “convulsively moving to the beat of drums” of military bands – this is how Herzen, while in exile in London, wrote about Nikolaev Russia. Society did not live, but frantically moved to the beat of a drum.
Judging by the desire to condemn everyone who thinks out of order, there has been a militarization of consciousness. A military person believes that there should be discipline in the army, the order of the commander is obligatory for execution. “Company, line up, march at a pace!” But society is not a company. And it is impossible, on the orders of the commander, to forget everything overnight – how they were brought up in childhood. I’m not even talking about balloons and the inscriptions “Peace to the world!”, But about the state of mind when you can analyze something, compare and draw your own conclusions.
How thin it was – not even ice, but a film on the water, like after the first frosts – this thin film of citizenship, civil society, democracy. She was not ostentatious, I am convinced of this, she was sincere, but how subtle she was, that it was enough for some such changes to occur for everything to collapse.
Also in an interview with Lyudmila Narusova: about the transit of power, denunciations, fear for loved ones and personal insult. Watch the full version on the Forbes YouTube channel.
