One we write, two in mind ...
It seems that the hasty adoption by both chambers of the Federal Assembly of amendments to the law on rallies will lead to a great political scandal. And this is not an exaggeration. It always happens when people who are accustomed not to think about the consequences of their activities are taken for a very important and necessary job, and they instantly take it "under the hood" in their desire to please the authorities. There is no doubt that the legislation in this area should change. But how - that is the main question. No one, not even the most inveterate oppositionist, likes it when crowds of incomprehensible people roam around his house day and night, crap around everyone and everything, when his children are afraid to go outside when traffic is blocked. And even more so no one wants to get under the "hot hand" of a policeman who has become brutal from the need to monitor compliance with the rule of law. But those amendments to the legislation, which were adopted by deputies of the State Duma and members of the Federation Council, I can not be classified as adequate. The presidential Council on the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights gave them a true expert assessment. I will not quote the document made public the other day. Its text with all the noted violations of Russian and international legislation is in the open press and on the Internet on the Council’s website. As a political scientist and psychologist, I want to add on my own: the legislative result obtained is absolutely disproportionate to the realities of Russian life.
And the point here is not even that the proposed amount of fines is clearly disproportionate to the property status of the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens and the minimum wage established by the state. The point, in my opinion, is that someone was very frightened by the protest wave that had recently swept across Russia. And, in turn, decided to scare the Russians with harsh police punishments for participating in such actions. This was done completely without taking into account the mentality of our citizens. Somewhere in Germany, the law is a guide to action. In Russia, where the authorities and society so far live completely separately from each other, the law is not. Moreover, I see a certain tendency here: the tougher the sanctions, the more citizens will oppose them.
I emphasize once again: I am a supporter of changes in legislation in the sphere of regulating the conduct of public political events. These changes are ripe. However, it is simply dangerous to accept them without a comprehensive discussion, without at least the relative consensus of most political forces, but only with the votes of one party and with frightening haste. Haste is good, as you know, when catching fleas. But not in the formation of a legislative field in the sphere of relations between the state and its citizens.
I think, moreover, I am sure that the changes in the law on meetings were such precisely because they were developed and adopted by the efforts of one party - United Russia. Exactly the same story occurred a few years ago, when a no less resonant law was adopted on the monetization of benefits. He, too, in the literal sense of the word, was pushed through by United Russia, without even thinking of adapting it to Russian conditions, without any explanatory work in society. What consequences this has caused is well known to all.
I am convinced that both then and now the inability of United Russia to negotiate with its opponents, to make compromises, if necessary, played its negative role. Its representatives are dominated by the phrase “party of power”, which has a corrupting effect on unprepared for work in power structures of minds. Hence the arrogance and arrogance present in the communication of United Russia with opponents.
More recently, when Dmitry Medvedev was president, he invited the opposition to take part in the work of state institutions, including lawmaking. But as far as I know, its representatives leave all these “round tables” precisely because “United Russia” is not inclined to resolve issues in the format of a dialogue. She, as the head of this faction in the State Duma, Andrei Vorobev, likes to repeat, “struggles” for one thing or another. And who is the party fighting against, which appropriated the epithet “folk”, if you take, for example, the law on rallies? With your own people? And who can defeat the party, whose real, and not inflated 30-32 percent rating?
I believe that Dmitry Medvedev, who recently headed United Russia, did not accidentally speak about the upcoming major staff changes. And this is absolutely correct: any party is made by people and the people are updated. This is an immutable law of party building. But where are the announced changes? I thoroughly know that so far the matter is not even limited to personnel rotation, but to the horizontal movement of the same personnel. And it is these people who are sitting in the party at key posts almost from the moment of its foundation, accustomed to the abundant party "trough", oppose the emergence in the ranks of the "United Russia" new people, with fresh ideas and attitudes consistent with the spirit and needs of the time. It is impossible for such people to make their way through the rows of mossy party bureaucrats welded together by mutual responsibility. I know this firsthand. Tested on myself.
So there are resonant laws that cause confusion and excitement in society. They are easy to "push through" through the parliament, having a majority in it and relying solely on the expert assessment of the "court" political scientists, like a certain Dmitry Orlov, who has long been saying just what his employers want to hear. But the problem is that Russian society wants decisions to be made taking into account bipolar opinions, taking into account dialogue. And now his absence becomes a problem for the country.
So far this problem is not so acute solely because the opposition today does not have strong leaders that people would follow. Those who sit in the Duma, have long been conformists. They just have this role: to criticize any proposals of the ruling party. Citizens are so accustomed to their constant outrage that very few people pay attention to them. Supporting non-systemists is like trying to breed chickens from boiled eggs. This “opposition” has nothing: no constructive ideas, no team, no coalition, no coherent program or concept. She even has no worthy leaders, fortunately for United Russia, but unfortunately for citizens.
But the main problem is not even in the absence of opposition, but in the absence of a real political force that would work in the interests of citizens. And if the "United Russia" does not want to become such a force, then according to all political laws a new one should appear. By the way, not necessarily oppositional. Not necessarily yet. But the more unpopular and ill-considered bills parliament passes, the less chance it leaves the authorities to maintain credibility.
Information