Who are you, Doctor Gaidar?
I was not a supporter of shock therapy
Where did a whole group of well-prepared, self-confident market economists come from in the totalitarian USSR? How did you personally develop your liberal views?
In your political destiny important role played by Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev. How do you evaluate this personality today?
Until I was 12 years old, I was deeply convinced that the Soviet Union was the most wonderful, fairest country in the world. Our thoughts were with the bearded men of Cuba, a portrait of Che Guevara hung in our house... Everything collapsed in August 1968. after the invasion Soviet troops to Czechoslovakia. At that time, I lived with my journalist father in Yugoslavia, where books that were not available in the USSR were legally distributed. Thanks to them, another romantic model of the world was formed in me, Marxism corrected by the Yugoslav experience.
With this understanding of socialism, I entered the economics department of the university. But in the USSR there was no modern economic education at all. There was a study of "Capital" and everything around it. Additionally, I had to study in the library. Gradually I realized that the Yugoslav model of socialism with workers’ self-government is another romantic utopia.
I experienced a serious ideological crisis when I saw that there was no energy in the socialist economy, that it was a dead end and it was not clear what to do about it within the framework of politically possible solutions for the regime. Therefore, in the mid-eighties, together with a group of young enthusiastic people, I tried to draw a certain line of orderly reforms aimed at dismantling the most obvious, inhibiting elements of the socialist system, to prepare for the gradual launch of real economic mechanisms. This was facilitated by a series of formal and informal seminars by Stanislav Sergeevich Shatalin and Nikolai Yakovlevich Petrakov. Once a young, thin, red-haired man came to see me at NIISI and said that he had read my last article in economics and found a lot of interesting things in it. He invited me to Leningrad to speak at a seminar. This is how our joint work with Anatoly Borisovich Chubais began.
We advanced primarily through self-education. Discuss problems that interest us in Soviet language economic science it was funny. Therefore, our community initially included only people who were able to read modern economic literature in the original language, usually in English.
Then we were the most energetic supporters of the path called the Hungarian one, and now, for obvious reasons, the Chinese one. I was not inclined to what was later called shock therapy. You can read my articles from the early 80s to see this. The historical paradox is that when all possibilities for orderly reforms were ruined, when old system simply ceased to exist when nothing else existed except the forced launch of market mechanisms, it was we, me and my colleagues, who had to implement a policy to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, which we were consistent opponents of until September 1990.
That fall, an alliance between Gorbachev and Yeltsin under the “500 days” program was expected. It could become a potential base for coordinated movements in the right direction. Did not happen. And in my economic review for the year ninety, I was forced to write that the time for orderly reforms was completely lost.
Even before Gorbachev found out about my existence, I had my own personal attitude towards Mikhail Sergeevich, which was quite positive. My assessment of this large-scale personality has not changed today. We should all be grateful to Gorbachev for the fact that it was he who pushed the USSR to reform. I belong to the circle of people who believed that he deserved support, especially since the fate of reformers in Russia has traditionally not been the best.
But I could not help but see an astonishing chain of terrible mistakes. allowed by Gorbachev's team in the economy. Every decision led to a calculated disaster. There are many examples, from the anti-alcohol campaign to the reduction in purchases of financially highly effective consumer goods with a parallel increase in the supply of investment equipment. Nikolai Ivanovich Ryzhkov was a good director of Uralmash, a good first deputy minister of heavy transport engineering, but turned out to be a disastrous prime minister during the period of the collapse of the system and the beginning of market reforms. He fatally failed to understand basic economic laws.
In the fall of 1988, Otto Latsis and I wrote a note to Gorbachev about what, in our opinion, was being done wrong in the economy. The note, to great surprise, reached Mikhail Sergeevich. He read it out at a Politburo meeting. A discussion arose within the government. Mikhail Sergeevich himself supported our position, but he did not have enough determination to take drastic actions, to attack someone’s specific interests. Mikhail Sergeevich was never strong in confrontation. He is one of those who endlessly seeks consensus.
We've compromised too often
At the beginning of your reforms, you said: “It doesn’t matter whether a particular grandmother can buy a kilogram of sausage, it’s important how much sausage there is in Moscow stores.” Even today the fate of a particular grandmother is not important to you?
Do you attribute the mistakes made during privatization to your team’s account? Name an industry where economic efficiency would increase as a result of privatization. Why were normally operating, profitable enterprises bought up for pennies?
It is unlikely that I have ever said that I am indifferent to the fate of a particular grandmother. If you believe rumors and the communist press, then what stupid things I have said, what terrible things I have not done! In Ivanovo, he allegedly said that Russia does not need its own textile industry... In Komsomolsk-on-Amur, he completely closed all shipbuilding... He decided that there was no need to mine gold in Yakutia... He ordered the eviction of all residents of Magadan... All this myths.
In the fall of 1991, I knew very well that there would be enough grain in the country only until February, and there was not a penny of foreign currency. He knew that if market levers did not immediately work, then millions of specific grandmothers would begin to die of hunger, as was the case in 21. I was interested in the grandmothers not as an example in some report, but as a demand for immediate, specific and decisive measures that would provide every Russian with a piece of bread already in the spring of 1992.
Everything that I and my comrades had to do then was strictly dictated by circumstances. We are guilty not of radicalism, but of the fact that total weight The compromises we were forced to make turned out to be exorbitant.
Unfortunately, we were unable to carry out privatization without compromise, which was supposed to create conditions for the market. Socialism as a political system collapsed, but this could not automatically lead to a working market economy; one hundred percent state ownership did not allow this. It was necessary to create a private owner, and this is done through privatization.
Even our opponents understood this. Now we are accused of the fact that privatization in Russia was proceeding at a very fast pace. But in 1991-1992 we were reproached for the exact opposite, that we liberalized prices. without first carrying out privatization.
But there is no greater nonsense than privatization in the absence of free prices. Imagine a store in 1991, where goods are issued by coupons, and the seller is a big boss dividing up the stock, as in a besieged city. Let's privatize this food distribution point. What will the store owner do? He will open it from the back door and then close it. Forever.
But after price liberalization, if you ask me to name an industry where privatization has clearly led to serious positive results, it is trade and the service sector. Compare consumer cooperative or military trade stores, where there was no privatization, with private ones. I think no comments are needed.
In industry, privatized enterprises perform at least as well as state-owned enterprises. In fact, where there is a real owner, private enterprises are much more efficient.
Privatization is not a panacea; in itself it does not increase efficiency, unless we are talking about small-scale privatization with the involvement of private capital. It launches a mechanism, the essence of which can be stated as follows: “It is not so important how property is distributed, what is important is that it is distributed, that property rights are secured. With competition, property will inevitably pass from the hands of those who cannot rationally manage it into the hands of more skillful ones.” ".
In the conditions of collapsing socialism, it was not so difficult to grab a piece of property, but maintaining it, learning to manage it so that the enterprise would bring profit and be financially stable, was not given to everyone. Therefore, property passes from one hand to another, as we see every day today.
As for the reproach that as a result of privatization someone managed to buy up almost the entire country for mere pennies, I generally agree. But who bought it? Labor collectives under the second privatization option. Who was the ardent opponent of such a strange model? Anatoly Borisovich Chubais, our entire team. But this option was approved in the spring of 1992 by the Supreme Council at the proposal of the Communists of Russia faction.
During my time, the government has repeatedly proposed to increase the cost of property that the collective can buy. Instead, the Supreme Council adopted a special document prohibiting price increases. And in 1993, our deputies generally came up with the idea of a fourth option of privatization: to give to labor collectives not 51, but all 90 percent of the shares for free.
We were consistent opponents of cheap privatization; we wanted it to bring as much as possible to the country’s budget. more money, but we acted within the framework of existing legislation. There were a lot of complaints against Chubais, but not a single opponent accused him of the illegality of his privatization. Yes, a lot was done wrong, but everything was legal. But the laws in the country are not made by the government.
Stakhanov's pace of privatization was explained by the fact that it was necessary to pass the “point of return.” We carried out privatization, but today there is even more talk about the possibility of a commercial revenge than at the beginning of 1992...
Talk is talk, but I believe that we ended the serious threat of communist revenge in the summer of 1996, when the results of the second round of the presidential elections were announced. I stated this already then. The development of events showed that the communist bloc was falling apart, that the Primakov-Maslyukov government was unable to offer anything fundamentally new in the socio-economic field. After Primakov’s resignation, despite Zyuganov’s threats, no all-Russian protests followed, and the Duma, primarily the communist faction, dutifully voted for the next candidate.
- How was Gazprom privatized, almost free of charge?
The final decision on the privatization of Gazprom was made by Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin, so all questions about this matter should be addressed to him. Personally, I don't like the way Gazprom was privatized.
Who abolished the state monopoly on vodka, thanks to whom the country was once flooded with low-grade Royal alcohol and German vodka of the same quality?
Thanks to me. On January 1, 1992, there was no longer any Union customs in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or the region. There was no Russian one yet. Therefore, and even in the conditions of an absolutely empty consumer market, it was stupid to talk about any customs tariffs. Then a temporary decision was made on zero duty. It was necessary to form our own customs (and we created it quite quickly), to give impetus to the domestic market. Already on August 1, 1992, we re-introduced customs duties, soon we increased them, then differentiated them...
As for the liberalization of alcohol production, this decision was wrong, even in the situation in 1992. But I want to remind you that that was a time of extreme weakness of the state. Relations between the Center and the regions have not yet been built. In general, Tatarstan then declared its sovereignty, its independence from Russian legislation. Actual liberalization was inevitable.
We are the opposition to the next government
Your relationship with Yeltsin. Why and how did he exchange you for Chernomyrdin? How do you rate your brief return in September 1993, was this decision of the President dictated solely by his own interests? How do you feel about Yeltsin today?
How did it happen that the word “democrat” became almost a dirty word in Russia? Why did Russia acquire such an imperfect Constitution?
What hopes do you pin on the Union of Right Forces bloc?
The replacement of Gaidar with Chernomyrdin was, as you remember, forced. In this case, the opposition promised to remove obstacles to changing the Constitution. I will not remember everything that happened then, I will only tell you how the voting itself took place.
Before choosing from three figures - Skokov, Chernomyrdin and your humble servant, the president asked me for advice. I said that he would do the right thing if he proposed my candidacy. If the decision is different, then Chernomyrdin must be chosen.
Yeltsin asked me to withdraw my candidacy, but I was responsible to my supporters and could not help the president here.
My return in the fall of 1993, apparently, was dictated to some extent by opportunistic considerations, but even then everything was much more complicated. Yeltsin then, in my opinion, still treated me with great trust and sympathy.
In September 1993, I understood perfectly well that the crisis of dual power had entered a decisive phase, and it should be resolved in the coming days. Many observers were inclined to believe that it would be resolved by the fall of Yeltsin. In this situation, I did not think I had the right to reject the president’s proposal. And the fact that we were able to turn the situation around on the evening of October 3, in my opinion, completely justifies my temporary return to the government.
- But why weren’t you made prime minister after the dispersal of the Supreme Council?
This is a question, rather, for Yeltsin, but I think that Boris Nikolayevich had internal obligations to Chernomyrdin, who did not betray in difficult days, although many expected that Viktor Stepanovich would behave differently.
Then, it seems to me, the president was waiting for the results of the December elections. If the reformers had received decisive support, then the composition of the government would have been different. In fact, we received very high support from the electorate in December 1993, almost 16 percent, but expectations were so high that good result was perceived almost as a defeat. It was decided that the people were tired of reforms, and in such circumstances only Chernomyrdin could lead the government.
If we talk about my attitude towards Yeltsin, then it, like my attitude towards Gorbachev, has not changed significantly. Boris Nikolaevich played a historical role. He, a twice fully elected president, has never used his power to suppress democratic institutions. Opposing the president today is the safest thing possible. This alone is worth a lot in Russia.
Yes, he made a lot of mistakes, he has a lot of weaknesses, which especially manifested themselves with age. There are many undecent people around him. The number of those who know how to say “no” to him is steadily decreasing. But what did we expect in our country, with its history? What other president would we like to elect?
As for whether the word “democrat” has become a dirty word, in certain circles the word “communist” is a dirty word. But look at communism itself, everyone who wants to fearlessly criticizes it, but no one touches democracy, none of the politicians, even Zyuganov, will ever say that he is against democracy as such. Every prime minister, Primakov for example, as soon as he sits in his chair, declares: “We will not deviate from the course of reforms.” It is believed that the word “reforms” has also become a dirty word, and the prime ministers, all as one, keep repeating: “We won’t roll back.”
As for the Constitution... After my resignation in 1992, the deputies decided that since Gaidar had left, why should we stick to this promise, why should we help the president in creating a new Constitution? It was not Yeltsin who rejected the compromise; it was the parliamentary majority that rejected it. When the situation was reversed by force, after that the Constitution was adopted as much less balanced than previously thought. It never occurred to Yeltsin to demand the kind of Constitution that was ultimately put to the vote in 1993.
And what troubles were hidden in the real dual power can be illustrated by the example of the Chelyabinsk region. The head of the administration, Solovyov, appointed by the president, worked there. The Local Council decided to hold elections. Sumin won them.
The Supreme Council recognized Sumin as the head of the Chelyabinsk regional administration, the government and the president recognized Solovyov, the Ministry of Finance recognized Solovyov’s signature, and the Central Bank, which is under the auspices of the Supreme Council, recognized Sumin’s signature. The head of the city police went over to Sumin’s side, the head of the regional police remains loyal to Solovyov... What other Constitution could we adopt against such a background?
With all this, I am a supporter of a conservative attitude towards the Constitution, I am not an enthusiast of its endless revisions. The stability of the Constitution is in itself a great value.
As for the Union of Right Forces bloc, its very creation is a great success. Instead of the many parties that the Democrats ran in the elections last time, we have one, consolidated force. Few people believed that this was possible. The path was difficult, but we made it through.
Our main task is to resist both in the elections and later, already in the Duma, the Primakov-Luzhkov bloc. We, as before, have a negative attitude towards Zyuganov and Ilyukhin, but main danger we see in nomenklatura capitalism. Primakov-Luzhkov is supported by those who like any party in power.
As for the opposition of the Union of Right Forces, we are talking about opposition not so much to current government- she completes her journey. We are trying to build a party of consistent opposition to the next government.
The elections themselves, both parliamentary and presidential, will take place within the constitutional deadlines. Yeltsin is the guarantor of this, and this will be his last, but not least, contribution to the development of Russian democracy. I don’t presume to predict the results. After I rashly declared at the end of 1995 that Yeltsin had no chance of winning the next elections, I try not to make predictions about the outcome of the presidential elections in Russia.
- What do you, your family, do besides politics?
My favorite pastime is books, good, historical ones. I love rereading classics. I haven’t been reading new books very often lately. From what I’ve been reading lately, I highly recommend you the series prepared by the Yakovlevsky Foundation, documents Soviet period. I don't think I've read anything interesting in a long time. Now they have it out last volume"Beria", it's on my table, I haven't opened it yet, I'm looking forward to it. I have three sons, when I am free, I communicate with them.
- How old is the eldest?
The oldest is 20, the youngest is 9.
- Where does the eldest study?
At the Academy of National Economy.
His father Timur Gaidar is the son of the famous Arkady Gaidar, and his mother Ariadna Bazhova is the daughter of a writer.
Yegor's parents were intellectuals from the sixties who professed democratic views. After graduating from high school with a gold medal in 1973, he entered Moscow State University at the Faculty of Economics.
In 1978, he received a honors diploma and continued his postgraduate studies.From that moment, even under the Soviet system, Gaidar had ideas about economic transformation.
In 1980, under the leadership of Stanislav Shatalin, Gaidar defended his Ph.D. thesis on the topic “Evaluation indicators in the economic accounting mechanism of industrial enterprises.”
Later, his theory of economic transformation was practically implemented during his work in the State Duma and the Russian government.
After this, Gaidar was invited to work at the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Science and Technology and the USSR Academy of Sciences, where projects for economic transformation in the country were developed. With his colleagues in 1984, he was involved in the development of documents on the idealization of national economic management by the Politburo Commission.
No matter how the then leadership implied radical changes, Gaidar’s team was determined, having studied the experience of socio-economic reforms in Eastern and Central Europe.
In 1985, economists planned to create a single team to study the structure of Soviet society, the economy, and thoroughly analyze the paths of transformation. This group included Yegor Gaidar.
In a short period of time, the created community, where Gaidar was one of the leaders, revealed significant distortions and misinformation about Soviet reality, where there was greater reliance on the administrative market. This community has had a significant impact on the country's economy for more than 2 decades.
Yegor Gaidar's activity led to him being entrusted with the post of head of the economic department of the theoretical organ of the CPSU Central Committee, the magazine Kommunist. A little later, he created the Institute of Economic Policy of the USSR Academy of National Economy - the future Institute of Economics in Transition. Gaidar led it until the end of his days. In 1990, he presented his doctoral dissertation on the topic “Hierarchical structures and economic reforms.”
During this period, Gaidar also played a significant role, where decisions were made in a short time that influenced the future fate of now Russia. Some time later, Gaidar was appointed Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, where he prepared an economic program for A. His colleagues also ended up in the same government.
Starting from the end of 1992, Gaidar held various positions, but due to his active insistence on his ideas, he was removed. But all this was a temporary phenomenon, since his achievements and influence remained outside the government corridors. To ensure political support for the reforms, he creates the “Choice of Russia” electoral bloc, which was one of the two largest parties in the State Duma.
In 1999, Gaidar appears as a deputy State Duma and one of the leaders of the Union of Right Forces. At the international level, Gaidar tried to resolve the conflict in Yugoslavia and participated in the Russian-American dialogue. Yegor Gaidar reflected his political and economic views in his works “Days of Defeats and Victories”, “A Long Time”, “Anomalies of Economic Growth”, “State and Evolution”, “Death of an Empire”, etc.
On November 24, 2006, at a seminar in Dublin, Gaidar was hospitalized with severe poisoning. On December 16, 2009, he died.
Gaidar Egor Timurovich from 1990 to 2009, with short breaks, headed the Institute for Economic Policy in the Transition Period. It was he who led the government, called reformist, which created and implemented “shock therapy” and price liberalization.
Biographical information
The future politician was born in the capital of our Motherland on March 19, 1956. Yegor Gaidar’s father was a war correspondent, who later rose to the rank of rear admiral. Yegor Timurovich's grandfathers were famous writers. The literary works of Arkady Gaidar and Pavel Bazhov were even studied as part of the school curriculum.
In 1962, Timur Arkadyevich Gaidar with his wife Ariadna Bazhova and six-year-old son Yegor came to Cuba. They lived there for some time and were acquainted with Raul Castro and Che Guevara.
In 1966, they moved to Yugoslavia, where the ten-year-old boy first developed an interest in economic problems.
In his youth, Yegor played chess well and took part in many competitions.
After graduation high school with a gold medal, Yegor Gaidar became a student at the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University. Lomonosov. Study in this higher educational institution lasted until 1978, then he continued his studies there as a graduate student.
Gaidar’s leader was academician Stanislav Shatalin, who is considered his ideological ally.
In November 1980, Yegor Gaidar, whose biography was later closely connected with economic problems, became a candidate of economic sciences. He wrote his dissertation based on the results of an analysis of estimated indicators in the cost accounting system at enterprises.
From 1980 to 1986, E. T. Gaidar’s place of work was the All-Union Scientific Research Institute for System Research of the State Committee for Science and Technology and the USSR Academy of Sciences.
After that, for a year he worked as a leading researcher at the Institute for Economics and Forecasting of Scientific and Technological Progress of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Its leader was academician Lev Abalkin, who later took the post of Deputy Prime Minister Soviet Union Ryzhkova N.I.
Meeting Chubais
There are two versions of how Yegor Gaidar met A. Chubais, who proposed and implemented the idea of privatization in our country.
According to one version, the acquaintance took place in St. Petersburg, when Gaidar received an invitation to participate in a series of seminars in 1982 on economic topics under the auspices of Chubais.
According to other sources, they met later in 1983 during their joint participation in the activities of the state commission to study the possibilities of economic transformation in the Soviet Union.
In mid-1986, Gaidar, Chubais and the future major entrepreneur Peter Aven organized the first open conference in the Leningrad Zmeina Gorka.
In the early nineties
From 1987 to 1990, Gaidar Yegor Timurovich was an editor in the economics department and a member of the editorial board of the Kommunist magazine.
In 1990, he took up the post of editor of Pravda in the economics department.
From 1990 to 1991, he headed the Institute at the USSR Academy of National Economy, which studied economic policy.
When the State Emergency Committee putsch began, Yegor Gaidar left the CPSU on August 19, 1991 and joined the ranks of the defenders of the White House. During these events, Gaidar met G. Burbulis, who recommended him to Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin as an experienced economist who could develop a plan for economic reform.
In early September, Gaidar became the head of a working group of economists, which was created by Burbulis and Alexey Golovko at the State Council of the Russian Federation.
The Fifth Congress was remembered by people's deputies for Yeltsin's keynote speech, the economic part of which was prepared by Gaidar's group.
Since October 1991, Gaidar became deputy chairman of the government of the RSFSR, his sphere of activity included issues of economic policy. He was also appointed Minister of Economy and Finance.
Yegor Gaidar, whose biography changed dramatically after the coup, became the initiator of the famous “shock therapy” and price liberalization.
Taking up the post of Minister of Economy came at a time when the Soviet Union collapsed and the laws practically ceased. Foreign economic activity got out of control, the functioning of customs became destabilized.
State budget and foreign exchange reserves were at zero, so the only way out was, as Yegor Gaidar's government believed, to unfreeze prices.
Work in the "government of reformers"
Since 1992, Gaidar became... O. head of the government of the Russian Federation. Under his leadership, the “government of reformers” created a privatization program, which it began to implement in practice.
Yegor Gaidar's reforms led to the eradication of the deficit, the launch of market mechanisms, currency reform and the privatization of the housing stock were carried out.
Gaidar played a certain role in stopping the Ossetian-Ingush conflict.
The dissatisfaction of most of the people and a certain part of government circles led to the fact that Gaidar had to resign on December 15, 1992.
From 1992 to 1993, he was director of the Institute for Economic Problems in Transition, and he also served as an adviser to the President of the Russian Federation. His responsibility included issues related to economic policy.
Since September 1993, he was nominated to the post of First Deputy Head of the Russian Government.
During the confrontation between the Supreme Soviet of Russia and Yeltsin in October 1993, Gaidar supported Boris Nikolayevich and appealed to Muscovites to protect democratic foundations.
As Minister of Economy, he tried to take measures to reduce inflation.
At the very beginning of 1994, he had to resign because he did not agree with the line pursued by Prime Minister Chernomyrdin.
Political activity
In 1994-1995, politician Yegor Gaidar was a member of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, where he headed the Russia's Choice faction.
From June 1994 to May 2001, he served as chairman of the Democratic Choice of Russia.
It is curious that because of his characteristic appearance, unbending character and increased efficiency, fellow party members jokingly nicknamed him “Iron Winnie the Pooh.”
In 1995, Gaidar again headed the Institute for the Study of Economic Problems in the Transition Period, which he created in 1990.
By December 1998, Russian liberal democrats managed to unite. In the leadership of the created public block "Right Cause" one could see, in addition to Gaidar and Chubais, Irina Khakamada, Boris Nemtsov and Boris Fedorov.
On August 24, 1999, Sergei Kiriyenko, Nemtsov and Khakamada created an electoral bloc called the “Union of Right Forces.”
After the parliamentary election campaign in 1999, the Union of Right Forces introduced Gaidar, according to its list, to the State Duma of the third convocation, where he became its co-chairman.
Due to the fact that the 2003 elections ended in the defeat of the Union of Right Forces, Gaidar decided to resign from the party leadership. Although, due to this decision, he was not nominated to the presidium of the political council of the Union of Right Forces, elected in 2004, the ideological party curator Gozman Leonid argued that Gaidar and Nemtsov still had leadership positions, regardless of their lack of a formal post.
Poisoning
11/24/2006 Yegor Gaidar participated in an Irish conference, where he became ill. At the hospital he was found to have signs of poisoning.
Some journalists have emphasized the fact that this happened the day after the death in a London hospital from polonium poisoning of former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, a sharp critic Russian President Putin and his political course.
Gaidar quickly managed to recover; a day later he was already in Moscow, where he refused to comment on speculation about his deliberate poisoning.
Political intrigue
Since September 2008, the chairman of the party, N. Belykh, resigned. The reason for this was information that it was planned to create a new right-wing party from the Union of Right Forces under the Kremlin wing.
Yegor Timurovich did not agree to take part in the creation of the updated structure and left the party.
According to him, he did not condemn the position of political structures loyal to the regime, which are not formally part of the party in power, believing that they have the opportunity to play a positive role.
Gaidar, Chubais and interim SPS leader Leonid Gozman called on fellow party members to cooperate with the authorities to create a right-wing liberal party.
The authors of this statement recognized the absence of a democratic regime in Russia. They expressed doubt that the right would be able to protect its values to the maximum extent in the future. However, no one can force them to defend other people's values, as the creators of the Union of Right Forces believed.
Wives and children of Yegor Gaidar
Gaidar was legally married to his first wife, Irina Smirnova, at the age of twenty-two while studying in his fifth year at Moscow State University. They met as children. The grandmothers of the future spouses took them to summer time grandchildren to the village of Dunino near Moscow, where the children vacationed together.
In this marriage, two children were born: Peter and Maria, but the family soon broke up. The children were divided between ex-spouses. Yegor Gaidar kept his son; after the divorce, his wife was left with her recently born daughter Maria, born in 1982, who for a long period remained in her mother’s surname.
Only in 2004 did Maria take her father’s surname. At one time she worked at the Institute for the Economy in Transition. In 2015, she moved to live in Ukraine, where she worked with the former Odessa governor Mikheil Saakashvili.
For the second time, Gaidar married Maria Strugatskaya, whose father, Arkady Natanovich Strugatsky, was a famous Soviet science fiction writer.
For Gaidar's new wife it was also a remarriage. From her first marriage she had a son, whose name was Ivan.
During life together Yegor Timurovich and Maria Arkadyevna had a son named Pavel.
About the last years of politics
The politician devoted his last years to writing articles and books on economic topics.
Gaidar Egor Timurovich, whose books are popular among economists, for recent years wrote several dozen publications in his life.
He knew English, Spanish and Serbo-Croatian.
In his monographs: “The Death of an Empire”, “A Long Time”, “State and Evolution” and many others, the right-wing political and economic views of the author are clearly visible.
He was an active opponent of the YUKOS affair. In his opinion, government circles, by committing reprisals against this company, caused economic damage to the state.
In 2007, Gaidar turned to US official structures and tried to convince them not to deploy missile defense systems in European countries.
Yegor Gaidar, cause of death
On the morning of December 16, 2009, Yegor Gaidar was found dead in his bed country house in the village of Uspenskoye (Odintsovo district, Moscow region). He was fifty-four years old. News agencies learned about the death of the politician from his personal assistant Gennady Volkov.
The day before, according to Gaidar’s press secretary Valery Natarov, a meeting lasted until 10 p.m., in which Anatoly Chubais, Evgeny Yasin, Leonid Gozman and Yegor Gaidar took part. The cause of Gaidar’s death, according to doctors, was a detached blood clot.
At the meeting with Chubais, problems of the development of Russian nanotechnology were discussed. After it ended, the participants said goodbye, and Gaidar, in normal condition, left for his country house near Moscow.
In the evening, Yegor Timurovich managed to work on a book, which was planned as a continuation of his “Death of the Empire” and “A Long Time”. Death occurred at approximately four o'clock in the morning.
She reported that shortly before her death she saw her father, he was in a good working mood, and they planned regular meetings.
The farewell to the deceased was at the pulp and paper mill, and he was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery.
All government leaders of the country sent their condolences over the death of Yegor Timurovich Gaidar.
The then President Dmitry Medvedev, in particular, in words of grief noted that a talented economist had passed away, who had done a lot to form market fundamentals and the transition of the state economy to a renewed direction of development. It was he who was not afraid to take full responsibility during the most difficult period in the country.
Prime Minister Putin noted in a telegram of condolences that Yegor Timurovich was a talented scientist, writer and politician who left his mark on the history of the development of our state. His literary heritage will be studied by young economists for a long time, where they will be able to learn a lot of useful things for themselves.
Egor Timurovich Gaidar (March 19, 1956, Moscow - December 16, 2009, Odintsovo district, Moscow region) - Russian state and political figure, economist. One of the main ideologists and leaders of economic reforms of the early 1990s in Russia. In 1991-1994 he held high positions in the government of Russia (including acting as chairman of the government for 6 months). He took part in the preparation of the Belovezhskaya Accords. Under Gaidar's leadership, price liberalization and reorganization were carried out tax system, liberalization of foreign trade, privatization has begun. The transition from a planned to a market economy began.
Organizer of anti-war rallies during the First Chechen war. One of the key participants in the events on the part of the government during the Constitutional crisis of 1993 and the cessation of the activities of the Supreme Council of Russia.
State Duma deputy of the first (1993-1995) and third (1999-2003) convocations. He took part in the development of the Tax Code, Budget Code, and legislation on the Stabilization Fund. Founder and one of the leaders of the parties “Democratic Choice of Russia” and “Union of Right Forces”.
Founder and director of the Institute of Economic Policy named after. E. T. Gaidar. Author of numerous publications on economics, several monographs devoted to the economic history of Russia and analysis of the processes of transition from a planned economy to a market economy.
Economic reforms
In 1983, Gaidar met Anatoly Chubais, who was the informal leader of a Leningrad group of economists from the Engineering and Economic Institute, which conducted economic seminars discussing possible ways of market reform of the socialist economy. Close contacts begin between the Leningrad group and Moscow economists working on the reform program.
In July 1990, an economic seminar was held in the city of Sopron (Hungary), which was attended, on the one hand, by famous Western economists (Nordhaus, Dornbusch, etc.), and on the other, almost the entire future reform team (Gaidar, Chubais, Aven and others). etc.). At this seminar, a program of radical reforms was discussed: shock therapy, price liberalization, the need for financial stabilization, and maximum cost reductions to prevent hyperinflation. Yevgeny Yasin, who was present at the seminar, described the results of the discussion with Western experts: “ Then the confidence in the correctness of the planned path, which was groped in our own research, became complete. There was no longer any doubt about this among experts».
In September 1991, Gaidar's group begins work on a reform project at the 15th dacha in Arkhangelskoye. In October, Yeltsin meets with Gaidar and decides to form a government of reformers based on his team. Gaidar was supposed to direct the work of the cabinet and be directly responsible for the entire financial and economic bloc.
The start of reforms was made at the second stage of the V Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, which began on October 28, 1991. At the congress, President Boris Yeltsin gave a keynote speech. The main provisions of Yeltsin's speech concerning economic reform were prepared by Gaidar. The congress adopts a resolution in which it approves the basic principles of economic reform set out by Yeltsin (including a one-time unfreezing of prices), and also approves Yeltsin as acting Chairman of the Government of the RSFSR.
Gaidar's supporters generally believe that he took responsibility for the economy in the face of a severe economic crisis and carried out the necessary reforms at the same time. Negative consequences They associate what happened not with the reforms themselves, but with the inconsistency of the course towards their implementation and the premature stop due to political reasons. For positive ratings Yegor Gaidar's activities are characterized by claims that with his reforms in 1992 he prevented mass famine and civil war.
Also, some highly appreciate Gaidar’s contribution to the development of modern economic science in Russia.
In addition, it is argued that Gaidar contributed to the development of the Russian economy after leaving the government. According to Anatoly Chubais, “ whatever subsystem of the country's current economy you take - the Tax Code, the Customs Code, the Budget Code, technical regulation, etc. - each of them is either spelled out from beginning to end by Gaidar and his institute, or he participated to a significant extent in their development»
Gaidar's opponents, as a rule, blame him for high inflation, the depreciation of citizens' deposits in Sberbank in 1992, a drop in living standards, a decline in production, stratification of society, unfair privatization and others. negative phenomena, developed in Russia in the 1990s. They criticize the radical “shock” nature of market reforms, their lack of preparedness, and the inconsistency of financial stabilization.
In 2006, Gaidar “for outstanding services in carrying out comparative analysis economic evolution" was awarded the International Leontief Medal. The medal is awarded annually by the Public Awards Committee at the Leontief Center.
Well-known economist, director of the Institute for the Economy in Transition (1990-1991, 1992-1993, 1995-2009). Former co-chairman of the election bloc and the SPS party (2001-2004), co-leader of the public bloc "Right Cause" (1997-2001), chairman of the party "Democratic Choice of Russia" (1994-2001), deputy of the State Duma of the first and third convocations. From 1992 to 1993, he was an adviser to the President of the Russian Federation on economic policy issues. Former Deputy Chairman of the Government of the RSFSR (1991-1992) and Acting Chairman of the Government Russian Federation(1992), head of the “government of reformers”, author of “shock therapy” and price liberalization. Died December 16, 2009.
Yegor Timurovich Gaidar was born on March 19, 1956 in Moscow in the family of a war correspondent for the Pravda newspaper, Rear Admiral Timur Gaidar. Both of Yegor Gaidar's grandfathers - Arkady Gaidar and Pavel Bazhov - are famous writers.
In 1978, Gaidar graduated from the Faculty of Economics of Moscow state university named after Lomonosov, in November 1980 he graduated from graduate school at Moscow State University. In graduate school at Moscow State University, Gaidar studied under the guidance of academician Stanislav Shatalin, who is considered not only his teacher, but also an ideological like-minded person. After graduating from graduate school, Gaidar defended his Ph.D. thesis on evaluation indicators in the economic accounting system of enterprises.
In 1980-1986, Gaidar worked at the All-Union Research Institute of System Research of the State Committee for Science and Technology and the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1986-1987, he was a leading researcher at the Institute of Economics and Forecasting Scientific and Technological Progress of the USSR Academy of Sciences, where he worked under the leadership of Academician Lev Abalkin, who later became Deputy Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov.
In 1982, Gaidar met Anatoly Chubais (later the main ideologist of privatization), being invited to St. Petersburg to speak at “Chubais” economic seminars. According to other sources, Gaidar met Chubais and Pyotr Aven (in the future - a major businessman) in 1983-1984, when he participated in the work state commission, who studied the possibilities of economic transformation in the USSR.
In the summer of 1986, in Zmeinaya Gorka near Leningrad, Gaidar, Aven and Chubais organized their first open conference.
In 1987-1990, Gaidar served as editor of the economics department and member of the editorial board of the Kommunist magazine. In 1990, Gaidar was editor of the economics department of the Pravda newspaper.
In 1990-1991, Gaidar headed the Institute of Economic Policy at the USSR Academy of Economics, where he defended his doctoral dissertation.
On August 19, 1991, after the start of the GKChP putsch, Gaidar announced his resignation from the CPSU and joined the defenders of the White House. During the August events, Gaidar met Russian Secretary of State Gennady Burbulis.
In September Gaidar headed working group economists, created by Burbulis and Alexey Golovkov under the State Council of the Russian Federation. In October 1991, Gaidar was appointed to the post of Deputy Chairman of the RSFSR Government for Economic Policy, Minister of Economy and Finance of the RSFSR. The following events are associated with the name of Gaidar: Russian history, like the famous “shock therapy” and price liberalization. He took this post during the collapse of the Soviet Union, when laws ceased to apply, instructions ceased to be followed, and security forces ceased to function. Did not work Soviet system control over foreign economic activity, customs ceased to function. According to Gaidar himself, in a situation where there were no reserves left - neither budgetary nor foreign exchange, the only way out was to unfreeze prices.
In 1992, Gaidar became acting chairman of the government of the Russian Federation. As the head of the “government of reformers,” Gaidar took an active part in creating the privatization program and implementing it in practice.
In 1992-1993, Gaidar served as director of the Institute for Economic Problems in Transition and was an adviser to the President of the Russian Federation on economic policy issues. In September 1993, Gaidar became first deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers - the government of the Russian Federation.
On October 3-4, 1993, during the constitutional crisis in Moscow, Gaidar called on the people to take to the streets and fight for new mode to end.
From 1994 to December 1995, Gaidar was a deputy of the State Duma Federal Assembly Russian Federation, chairman of the Russia's Choice faction.
In June 1994, Gaidar became chairman of the Democratic Choice of Russia party (he remained the party leader until May 2001). Colleagues in the Far East gave him a playful nickname - “Iron Winnie the Pooh” - for his characteristic appearance, unbending character and increased efficiency.
In 1995, Gaidar again headed the institute he created in 1990, which became known as the Institute for the Economy in Transition.
In December 1998, Russian liberal democrats united into the “Right Cause” public bloc, whose leadership included Gaidar, Chubais, Boris Nemtsov, Boris Fedorov, and Irina Khakamada. On August 24, Sergei Kiriyenko, Nemtsov and Khakamada announced the creation of the Union of Right Forces (SPS) electoral bloc. In the 1999 parliamentary elections, Gaidar, on the SPS list, became a member of the State Duma of the third convocation. The founding congress of the SPS party took place on May 26, 2001, and Gaidar became one of its co-chairs. After the defeat of the Union of Right Forces in the elections in December 2003, Gaidar left the leadership of the party and was no longer included in the new composition of the Presidium of the Political Council of the Union of Right Forces, elected in February 2004 - according to Leonid Gozman, the party’s curator for ideology, “Gaidar and Nemtsov remain leaders, not holding formal positions."
Gaidar is an honorary professor at the University of California, a member of the editorial board of the journal "Bulletin of Europe", a member of the advisory board of the journal "Acta Oeconomica".
On November 24, 2006, while attending a conference in Ireland, Gaidar suddenly felt ill and was taken to the hospital with signs of acute poisoning. Journalists noticed that this happened the day after Alexander Litvinenko, a former employee of the FSB of the Russian Federation, a sharp critic of the Kremlin’s policies and personally of President Vladimir Putin personally, died in a London hospital from poisoning with the radioactive substance polonium. However, Gaidar managed to recover and the very next day he flew to Moscow, where he continued his treatment. Gaidar refused to comment on speculation that he was deliberately poisoned.
In September 2008, SPS leader Nikita Belykh resigned as party chairman. The reasons for this politician’s action were soon explained: it was reported that within a few months the SPS would become part of a new right-wing party created by the Kremlin. Gaidar refused to participate in the creation new structure and submitted his resignation from the party. At the same time, according to the politician, he “is not ready to say a word in condemnation” of the position of those who believe that “ political structures"loyal to the regime, but not formally part of the ruling party" are capable of playing a positive role. However, soon he, together with Chubais and Leonid Gozman, who temporarily headed the SPS, called on party members to cooperate with the authorities to create a right-wing liberal party. Insisting on the need for such a step, the authors of the statement admitted that “a democratic regime does not function in Russia.” They expressed doubt that the right would in the future “be able to defend our values in full.” “But we certainly will not be forced to defend others,” the SPS leaders asserted.
On December 16, 2009, Gaidar died at the age of 54. According to RIA Novosti, the cause of death was a detached blood clot; the next day, Gaidar’s daughter said that he died from pulmonary edema caused by myocardial ischemia.
The media wrote that Gaidar is a man of radical right-wing views in politics and economics. He was the author of the monographs “Economic reforms and hierarchical structures”, “State and evolution”, “Anomalies of economic growth”, “Days of defeats and victories”, Long time”.
Gaidar spoke English, Serbo-Croatian and Spanish. He was a good chess player and played football.
Gaidar was married for the second time to the daughter of the writer Arkady Natanovich Strugatsky, Marianna, whom he met at school. He left three sons - Peter from his first marriage to Irina Smirnova and Ivan and Pavel from his second (Ivan is Marianna’s son from her first marriage), and a daughter, Maria, who was born in 1982, when Gaidar and Smirnova were getting ready to divorce. After the divorce, Peter began to live with his father and his parents, and Maria remained with her mother and for a long time bore her last name. Only in 2004 did Gaidar admit his paternity, and she took his last name. It is known that Maria Gaidar was an employee of the Institute for the Economy in Transition and the leader of the youth movement “Democratic Alternative” - “Yes!”.