Кто владеет информацией,
владеет миром
Rating

The Power Shouldn't Be Over the Law

The Power Shouldn't Be Over the Law
Dmitry Saveliev 31.08.2010

The report with intriguing heading "Weak link and new strategy of the Kremlin" prepared by Agency of political and economic communications will lead to turning of liberal political reforms in 2011. There are all preconditions to think that the Kremlin won't stimulate the growth of political competition any more. On the contrary, the power will try to place their stake on "Edinaya Russia".

As it is known, elections in a number of regions of the country will take place on October, 10th, 2010. They will be a threshold of the most important for destiny of the country election campaign to the State Duma of Russia in 2011 and the president of the country in 2012. Favourable for the country outcome of election campaigns of 2011-2012 will depend on whether citizens of our country in autumn of 2010 show what they don't want to see in power any more.

What will be the background autumn campaign will take place? First of all, it is possible to notice that last regional elections in March, 2010 showed decreasing of support of "Edinaya Russia". There are no serious bases to believe that this representative of interests of the corrupted officials managed somehow to correct its position for expired months.

It seems very strange to me when in Russia the party is headed by government officials and furthermore the first persons of the country. Let's take, for example, party "Edinaya Russia" headed by the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. IX congress unanimously elected Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin the chairman of All-Russia political party "Edinaya Russia" investing with full powers of the higher elective person of the party since May, 7th, 2008. A person not even being a party member heads the party. Nonsense! It's after all inadmissible! It turns out that it is a shame to him to enter the party?

After all how it is possible using such administrative state resource to head the party which put him forward as the leader for strengthening of the power in the country? Certainly, it automatically becomes "party in power".

Now already few people remember that there was well-known article 6 in the Constitution of the USSR proclaiming the Communist Party supervising and directing force of the Soviet society. Boundless domination of party bosses was based on it. Let's recollect how Vladimir Putin's teacher Anatoly Sobchak zealously supported cancellation of the article. Certainly, nothing changed instantly: aggressive-obedient majority of the parliament as Sobchak's colleague Gabriel Popov named it didn't dare to cancel monopoly of CPSU. But process, as one more active politician of those days - Michael Gorbachev - told started. A year later in March, 1990 6th article of the Constitution was cancelled.

Now formally this doctrine which could be applied to "Edinaya Russia" is absent in our Constitution but as a matter of fact nothing changed. The chairman of the government once a year reports to the State Duma which majority is made of members of "Edinaya Russia". Unless deputies will criticize work of the government and its chairman if its the head of their party? As a result "democratic model" turns out to be with big defect as we have fictitious report as a result. It exists but in practice Duma works in "a manual mode". As at CPSU.

If earlier the Communist Party pursued growth of party numbers first of all at the expense of workers and collective farmers which was connected with nomenclature distribution, now the party in power doesn't need it. Growth of number of party members is completely not necessary to it. Yes, it's necessary to attract a small part of youth to show statistics. But no more than that. Let's take now other official of the federal scale - the chairman of the Federation Council Sergey Mironov. Formally it is the third party in the state. Thus he heads the party "Fair Russia". Party with remarkable offers on development of social orientation of citizens of Russia. Though how it's possible that official of such rank could head, as he himself told, "opposition party"?

First of all, he uses the state resource broadcasting ideas of the party during his trips at the state expense. It turns out to be strange somehow that the third party in the country is oppositionist. If it's only in word or in practice? Where is opposition here? When it is necessary, they the same way vote by "approval from the Kremlin". Here you are citation from Sergey Mironov's reference: "The power condition at all levels - from federal to local - causes rightful discontent of our citizens. The machinery of state is still limited corporation of officials occupied with own well-being and not with interests of people. Numerous cases of illegal repartition of the property, corruption and administrative arbitrariness undermine trust to state structures and promote deep alienation of the population from the power. Today about 80% of our citizens declare impossibility to influence state policy that is why they decline all responsibility for the destiny of Russia. The party considers as one of its main tasks struggle with bureaucratization of machinery of the state and alienation of power from people. Rigid public control over actions of authorities is necessary. The power shouldn't be over the law! We will force the power to work for interests of citizens!"

The third person in the state says right things. Unless it is possible to argue with it? Only it turns out that if the official of such level talks about thing happening in the country and can make nothing, it means that we don't have uniform power in the country. There are influence groups in the higher echelons of power with their own interests.

In many regions of Russia there is opposition between mayors of cities and heads of subjects. Therefore party "Edinaya Russia" aspires to introduce as much as possible members into power legislature. It's done so that it will be possible through party discipline to influence mayors (governors after all come from the party in power) and it affects life of local residents. While mayors of cities undergo procedure of election by townsmen. Therefore I consider it completely not important "what color" the mayor is (red, blue, orange...) - the main thing is that he won "economic tender" among the voters.

In general I think that the mayor of city and municipal union is not political figure but economic executive. Therefore I offer to elect mayors of cities and heads of municipal unions irrespective their party belonging. Inhabitants don't care about party preferences of the elected town governors. Especially it is fair at elections in municipalities where there's local government. After all municipal budget first of all depends on local taxes. Therefore the main thing - to provide favourable conditions for development of small business through economic levers. What has party belonging of the head of municipality to do with it?

Vision of economic development is at the first place, so it's necessary to prepare strategy of the development of the city before elections. That would be real elections. Election of better life through economy, not though policy. Political party forms first of all legislature. There - in Legislative Assemblies, local Dumas parties can develop laws for the region, hear and confirm local budgets. It is a real tandem of two branches of power - legislative and executive. I suggest to enter similar tender also for the governors. It consists in that candidates for governors at first studied the region, develop their offers on its development and then introduce them for public to judge.

Though it won't be pleasant to management of "Edinaya Russia". Whether it needs people with independent thoughts, ideas? Self-promoted people without party membership could be candidates for governors. But independent "nuggets", as it appears from political practice of last decade, are not necessary to the helmsman of the country. It is necessary to say that in the early 90-s many passed in power "on hurrah" on democratic wave. They won due to their oratory, innovative thoughts being said aloud, charisma. Though having come to power many didn't pass test by it, some of them "had it", while some became rich.

Now it is completely not obligatory to have "charm", charisma, to think perspectively and state strategy of economic development of the region and the country as a whole. It's enough simply to enter skillfully political system of the party in power - and passage ticket will be provided. Probably, therefore people started to call such governors "nano-governors". And though there are three branches of power registered in the Constitution: legislative, executive and judicial, there is one more, unwritten - party in power - it's over all these institutes.

Rostov-on-Don

Читайте также:
In other::
Search:
News