Кто владеет информацией,
владеет миром

"The Bears" Make Pitfall for Themselves

"The Bears" Make Pitfall for Themselves
Elena Loskutova 11.07.2006

The law "About extremist activity counteraction" "edinorussian" majority of the State Duma has corrected to such an extend that within the scope of definition "extremism" "public slander" relative to the authority representative connected with its charge in "commission of heavy or especially grave crime" comes. For example, public charge of any representative of authority in corruption will be considered as extremism. To prove that it’s a "slander" under present system of "justice" will be simple. Besides “public appeals and performances" "inducing" to leading of extremist activity will be considered as "extremism" now. But this "inducing" is indemonstrable that means that acceptance of such norm of law will lead to selectivity of its application, to an arbitrariness from the part of authority and courts under its control. In fact "extremism" – is a criminal clause and certain terms of imprisonment. Disagreeable to authorities candidates accused of such "extremism" and condemned for it won’t participate in elections until their "convictions are not extinguished or remitted" - the amendment accepted by "edinorussians" majority of the State Duma into the law "About the basic guarantees of suffrages and the rights to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation". While the candidate from opposition is not condemned for "extremism", the party in power has also seen to it. The amendments eliminating any opportunity for opposition to participate in elections are brought in the law "About the basic guarantees". Now any critical statement of the oppositional candidate in connection to the authority can be brought under "inducing” to "extremism" and he will be declined registration. Besides, the authority can decline registration to the whole list of the party to which this candidate belongs. However, the case when oppositionists will be frightened and will keep silent is also stipulated. The law now has retroactive force: the candidate can be not admitted to elections on the basis of any of his critical statement during the latest 4 years (a term of work of parliament and other authorities). The party can be removed from elections because of the presence in its list of the candidate accused of "extremism". But even if in words of the unwanted candidate no "extremism" could be found, it’s still not late to find one and to remove the party list through the court in the course of the campaign in view of “newly appeared circumstances”. At that any competitor of a party can put in an application. Thus if disagreeable party passes all the obstacles possible, is admitted up to elections and moreover has chances to succeed, then its competitor - the party in power - can easily bring an action against it and to get it out of the way. It’s not important whether it is made by itself or someone of the satellites is made to do the work. But it, probably, seemed to a ruling grouping not enough. It has decided to make an attempt once again to sow discord among oppositional parties. Now if the unwanted candidate will be admitted to be “extremist” and a court examination will be initiated against the party aiming to get it away from the distance, it can expel the collegue from its list, court hearing stops, the party buys participation in the elections at the cost of renunciation of its comrade. But if "suddenly" the authority will not find the reason to find fault with something, then there are some more variants for barring of the objectionables to the elections. It’s enough for the authority to "incriminate" to the party "incompleteness of information" given to the electoral committee for the refudal to register the candidate and if the quantity of such candidates will exceed 10% from the list, a party will not be admitted to the elections. One more pretext of that kind - "inadequate registration of the papers" - for which neither separate candidate nor party will not reach. Both norms lead to an arbitrariness, they can be turned in any direction and against any person. "Party in power" unties hands also to dirty technologists (though it can quite take advantage of it itself). One of the grounds for cancellation of registration of a candidate or a party list by the court can serve "an establishment of the facts of payoff of voters" by certain "other persons and organizations operating on their assignment". It turns out that a candidate or a party should bear the responsibility for actions of people who have nothing to do with them but who following someone’s directions, assirt that they act on behalf of this candidate or party. "Black PR" of this kind was also used earlier on the elections, but it harmed only the image of the candidate. With acceptance of this amendment candidates and parties will be punished for the actions directed against them. In fact dirty technologists will not disdain also false testimonies and if such technologies will concern opposition, it will suit to the authorities well. There is even a suspicion that the authority itself is going to use such technologies against opposition. All these taken together turn even present inferior elections into nil. “The authority in power” understands perfectly well that men of sense can not to go to such emasculated elections.

Turnout barrier hasn’t been cancelled yet. "EdRu" found "output": returned the preschedule voting back to the law which was cancelled in 2002 with the purposes of restriction of illegal methods use of attraction of voters to participate in elections. Now the authority will bring controllable and obedient - state employees, students of the state high schools (the law on appointment of rectors will be useful here). In its ambition for keeping power for itself at any cost the party in power came up to elimination of all that is alive in politicy. But the “bears” make pitfall to themselves by their own actions. In such conditions the policy will finally move to the streets and will radicalisms itself there. Then a thing could happen the “party in power” is afraid of.

In other::