In a wide-ranging interview, former President N.Enkhbayar
tells www.news.mn how he enjoys the freedom of not holding a
public position and laments the coming together of the two major parties to
share power, but not principles.

How do you spend time after being head
of State?

I am as busy as ever. I do not hold a political office but I can in no way
sever my links with politics. I have been Prime Minister, Speaker of Parliament
and President and am constantly being asked by media to express my opinion on
political and economic events. It seems the people want to hear my views more
than anybody else’s. So I cannot let go of politics.

I also keep busy by attracting investment, both foreign and
domestic, for large projects. Another of my regular activities is to coordinate
assistance to the poor in towns and the countryside through NGOs. One of them
is New Path, which helps ger district residents, by offering better but
low-cost living arrangements, creating jobs and providing vocational training.
I also keep in active touch with leaders abroad whom I came to know when I held
high positions.

Did you work hard during the damaging
last winter?

I forgot to mention the NGO, Countryside Development Center, which was very
active providing help during the calamity to herders in the worst affected
aimags and soums. It contributed a lot to minimize losses.

How has all this work affected people’s
attitude to you?

How people see you has little to do with what official position you hold. Common
people always greet me with a warm smile on the streets. The trappings of office
are fragile and do not have much value. It is what I stand for as an individual
that makes for the permanent ties of affection between the ordinary people and me.

Are you then happy to have shed the
chains of office and to be free?

I enjoy the freedom that I do not have give political speeches as a part of
my duty to the Government or the party. This can be inhibiting at times. Now I
can express my opinions freely.

Some, however, feel you
do not want to leave the political limelight and manage to remain in public
view with interviews. Do other politicians also react like this?  

I left office about 15 months ago and in all this time I have given four or five
big interviews to newspapers, or about one in three months. Some would prefer
me to be silent but there are others who want me to speak out when there is
need. I have a duty to the nation, to give them fair warning that others are
making mistakes and also to show them the right way. My only concern now is the
greater truth, beyond partisan interests and gain.

The recent primary
conference of the MPRP was marked by the absence of both you and S.Bayar.  What do you think of the conference and of the
proposed new ideological thrust?

A party is a living organism and its lifeblood is its ideology. Changing that
is likely to lead to death. I want the MPRP to be alive and strong and so I have
warned against tampering with ideology and tradition. The party was once too
leftist and made many mistakes such as being politically repressive. There were
of course many historical reasons for this.

On the other hand the party spread literacy, provided good health
care and led Mongolia to independence. These are the crucial achievements of
the MPRP.  I see no reason to change our
leftist stand, but the ideology should be kept moderate and not allowed to get
extreme. Occupying the leftist space is vital to lead the country to a correct and
bright future.

The DP has always been a rightist party. Unfortunately, the
coalition has meant a dilution of both ideologies and neither party seems
really alive any longer. This is the price we pay for entering into deals for
short-term gain. Both parties decided to compromise on their basic concepts.
When the coalition Government was formed I said I would support it only as long
as it resolved complicated issues and fulfilled promises made to the people. After
two years I find it has mostly been a trade deal for the gain of the parties,
and not for furtherance of national interests, as was promised.

How would you support
your charge?

Both the Oyutolgoi and the Tavantolgoi projects have been allowed to veer
away from meeting national interests, to serve the interest of the coalition
partners. I would prefer the left and the right to remain true to themselves and
ask the people to choose between them. The people will ask one party to govern,
and the responsibility of the other party will be to monitor the governance. This
is how it should be in politics. We have gone for a market economy but for our
politics we have chosen the one thing that has no place in it: monopoly. The two
parties have established a monopoly in politics which has thus lost its
essence. Development has suffered and only a few people have got rich. We do
not recognize such monopoly hold in politics.

Just what do you
mean?

The two parties in coalition have a monopoly over power and take all decision
without fair debate, without any reference to the popular will. Options are not
considered, and fair criticism is unwelcome.  

What is the way out?

I think both parties should stick to their own separate ways, principles and
ideology.

But the two parties started
coming closer in 1997, when you were the Leader of MPRP which was in the
opposition. This gave MPRP members more power than usual in a minority group.
Then again, when you were Speaker, the MPRP and the DP were very close, working
almost in unison, very much like the present coalition. So you also wanted this
monopoly?

You remember many old details. Let us see what the situation was. The MPRP
had 25 seats in the 1996-2000 Parliament and could not force the Government to
fall. Several DP MPs had to be against their own Government, so Enkhbayar alone
could not do anything.  Numbers ceased to
be of real importance, as the spirit and essence of democracy were on the retreat,
and principles were being traded for profit and
position. Commercial links were forged to override political differences,
factions gained in power, and politics was devalued.

This was also when S.Zorig was murdered and corruption was
much talked about. I look back at those years as the most tragic and unfortunate
period of our democracy. The MPRP was certainly not responsible for the decay
in political morality but it is also true that it could not avoid the
infection. In 2004 the two parties were almost equally placed and the MPRP
cooperated with other parties. We had not got a majority in 2004 as people
blamed MPRP and Enkhbayar for not giving the children money. Fortunately
commodity prices rose and we seized the opportunity to distribute several
welfare allowances. But 2008 was different. There was a clear majority and
minority in Parliament, but still both parties entered into a coalition, only
to grab a monopoly of power.

Is the MPRP planning to lean to the
rightist ideology?

That will be a sure way of destroying the party. What will remain of a leftist
party if it seeks people’s support for rightist ideology? It will be tantamount
to establishing an altogether new party. We discussed reforms for which there
is need, but members did not say the party should be disbanded and given a new
color. We cannot abandon our traditional faith in social democracy and
democratic-socialistic principles. This is the predominant view among members,
no matter what some may say to the party leadership.

Was it a good idea to
promise money to citizens?

DP promised children’s allowance in the 2004 elections and then MNT1 million
for every citizen in 2008. MPRP was then compelled to announce MNT1.5 million
for every citizen. Both the 2004 and 2008 elections were contested irresponsibly,
with promises ousting policy. But once it was promised, the MNT1.5 million has
to be given. There can be no question about it.

The State treasury would
pay for the promise of a political party?

A promise is a promise and must be kept; otherwise people will lose faith in
elections.

People blame you and
S.Bayar for allowing the July 1 events get out of hand. Who was responsible?

It all began with Ts.Elbegdorj saying at a press conference that they were
holding protest demonstrations against the “unfair” election results. Bayar
said that the MPRP had won a clear victory and there was no justification for any
demonstration. As President, I called both of them and urged that the
demonstration should be dispersed and all issues relating to the election can
be discussed. They agreed but could not pacify the people.  I realized they
had failed and went on TV to call for an end to the demonstration and to settle
differences through peaceful talks. The demonstrators did not disperse and Bayar
kept urging me to declare an Emergency. At that point, the Police chief assured
us they would be able to quell the protest peacefully and there was no need for
an Emergency. All of us agreed.

At about 10 in the evening, security officials reported that they had failed to
control the situation and we had no alternative to declaring an Emergency and
force had to be used to get the situation under control. Unfortunately five
citizens were killed and no individual has been found guilty.

I suspect the two parties had joined hands to organize the
demonstration to keep the charges about the election alive. Those directly or
indirectly involved do not like my saying this, but this is what I have
concluded. Individual guilt and responsibility have to be ascertained. Since
the time the coalition was formed people have been convinced of the complicity
of both parties in the entire conspiracy.

You had wanted to
contest the Parliament by-election from Chingeltei district last year, but the
MPRP did not nominate you. Why did you cry foul against your own party’s
decision?

Remember that I never said anything against the DP and Elbegdorj when I lost in
the Presidential election. But the results offered enough grounds for
suspicion. I would like a proper enquiry into how I lost in the six districts of
Ulaanbaatar. We need such information so that the electoral process can be
reformed. They did not want to nominate me for the Chingeltei seat because of
their fear of losing control of the party when I won. Sometimes I cannot understand
how MPRP leaders could act like this. But this is only to be expected when there
is no idealism, no ideology.

What do you think of
the moves to change the name and ideology of MPRP?

Returning to the original name of the Mongolian People’s Party is all
right, but it should be considered much more widely.  When a similar demand had been made at the
time I was leader of the party we said so.

Changing the ideological thrust is something else
altogether. The MPRP must not abandon its leftist orientation.