Butyrskaya prison building. Inscription on the wall reads "Prohibited!"
Photo: Dmitry Lebedev
| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
The Brick’s Still There
As Dmitry Medvedev was elected President, several analysts thought that the government’s line would be liberalized. Nonetheless, after Vlast columnist Dmitry Kamyshev studied the bills lately introduced by Russian MPs, he concluded that you can expect just another cluster of bans and restrictions from the government.
Those introducing and passing
To begin with, it need be specified which bills are meant here. According to Article 104 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the President, the Chairman of the Government, the three basic courts (the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Arbitration), the Federation Council as a whole and each of its members in particular, all Duma MPs and legislative assemblies of all the entities within the Russian Federation are endowed with the right to initiate bills, that is introduce them in the State Duma. However, in reality only the initiatives of the President, the federal government and the representatives of the parliamentary majority (the United Russia in the present Duma) become laws in the end.
For all that, proposals of regional assemblies, which actually rarely turn into laws, should be considered as well. Evidently, you can judge the government’s policy by the initiatives of the President or the Cabinet. Similarly, the bills submitted by local authorities allow you to learn what the grass roots want from the government.
Bills introduced by some certain MPs and Federation Council members can sometimes be referred to the initiatives reflecting vox populi.
Bills submitted by regional assemblies and the few federal parliaments can be divided into two categories. The first one regards local problems, which prevent authorities of a certain entity of the Russian Federation from carrying out their work properly. Such problems can be addressed at the federal level only. These matters usually concern the following: proposals to boost pensions for those working in the Extreme North, or proposals to change the practice of budget financing of local authorities. These initiatives are seldom adopted by the State Duma. It only happens when those from the Russian regions manage to prove that their problem is typical of the whole Russia and its resolution will be beneficial for both regional and federal authorities.
The second group of legislative initiatives hardly has anything to do with local challenges. It reflects the regional officials’ views of what can be regarded a blessing for the entire country. The best example is the Chechen government’s amendment, which was introduced as far back as August, 2006 and hasn’t been considered by the Duma yet. The proposal envisages the right given to the same person to be elected president for more than two consecutive terms. This amendment could have changed Russia’s history unless Vladimir Putin had chosen a different means of retaining power.
Such initiatives are more likely to be adopted, but only in case these regional proposals comply with the general line of the federal government (which lacked in the Chechen amendment case). That’s why, as a rule, regional authorities usually keep in mind the most obvious trends of the Kremlin’s policy when preparing their federal drafts.
From this viewpoint, the regional legislative initiatives submitted to the State Duma within the past three months are evident of the fact that few regional officials believe in the liberalization anticipated by several experts. The majority of regional bills that aim to be relevant at the federal level regard imposing new bans and limitations, rather that loosening the previous screw-tightening. Some of these bans may even appear harmless, because they provide for struggling against the vice condemned by the entire mankind.
Those applying and involving
Vice #1 is alcoholism. Regional lawmakers suggest that it be combated in time and space.
Space initiatives imply, for example, a proposal of the Vladimir region legislative assembly. The lawmakers suggested that fines for drinking beer and other sorts of alcohol in public places be increased, and the list of such places be expanded. The authors of the document opine that Article 20.20 of the Administrative Offences Code “is of limited character, because is doesn’t comprise all public places (streets, first of all) that are subject to this kind of offences; besides, the penalty a wrongdoer can get doesn’t correspond with the weight of the law infringement and doesn’t contribute to averting such infractions.”
It need be added that now the range of those places where it’s forbidden to drink alcohol includes the following: children’s, educational and medical organizations, municipal and local public transport, organizations of culture, physical culture and sports facilities. The fine you can get for drinking alcohol of less than 12° varies between 100 and 300 roubles, for drinking alcohol more than12° – between 300 and 500 roubles. The lawmakers consider it necessary to fine all people drinking any kind of alcohol using the same scale – ranging from 300 to 500 roubles. Besides, streets and parks are to be added to the list of public places.
The lawmakers of the Tver region decided to annihilate the root of the alcohol problem, which, in their opinion, lies in the illegal sale of stiff drinks. There is no provision in the Administrative Offences Code envisaging separate punishment for it, and those breaking the law are usually fined for neglecting retail rules and illegal entrepreneurship, with fines ranging from 2.000 to 5.000 roubles for officials and from 20.000 to 50.000 roubles for legal entities. The Tver lawmakers are convinced that illegal sale of alcohol causes grave circumstances, such as mass poisoning, using the alcohol money to criminal ends and even “the population’s loss of trust in the government.” So, special yardsticks must be applied to such wrongdoers: a 5.000-rouble fine for civilians, 50.000 for officials, and 100.000 for legal entities. In case of recurring violation of the law, the person must be sentenced to up to 15 days of arrest.
In their turn, the Kurgan and Astrakhan authorities drew attention to the age aspect of the battle with “”alcohol luxuries.” The legislative assembly of Kurgan decided to amend the law “On state regulation of production and turnover of ethyl alcohol, alcohol and drinks containing alcohol,” increasing the age of those who can be sold these drinks from 18 to 21 years. The reasons given by the authors in the application to the bill deserves to be cited, “Practice and research show that an 18-year-old teenager, who has just finished school, is unable to take a reasonable decision about the necessity of drinking alcohol. At 21, a young person, who has graduated from a high school or who has a job already, can judge whether it’s necessary for him/her to drink alcohol.”
The Astrakhan assembly suggested that the fines for inveigling those under age into drinking alcohol be increased. According to the lawmakers, the fine of up to 500 roubles for drinking beer by the growing generation and 1000 roubles for drinking stiffer drinks “is presently inadequate.” Thus, “to save children and teenagers from the harmful influence of the persons mentioned,” the fines must be increased to 500-1000 roubles and 1500-2500 roubles correspondingly.
Those smoking and polluting
War on another bad habit – smoking – has been conducted extensively: regional MPs mostly expand the list of the areas where smoking out of specially determined zones is prohibited. According to the law “On restrictions of smoking” these areas include offices, municipal, local and air transport, closed sports facilities, organizations of culture, education, and state authorities premises. You can see the multitude approaches to addressing the problem in the reasons given by the authors of such bills.
For example, the parliament of St.-Petersburg, which suggests imposing a ban on smoking in theaters, cinemas and restaurants, refers to a survey of Levada Center reading that 62% of Russians (notably, 72% of women) would back this prohibition.
The assembly of Karelia, appeals to reason, rather than to emotions. An explanatory note to the bill resembles an extract from a dissertation, “When tobacco is burnt, basic and additional streams of smoke are produced. 90% of the basic stream consists of 350-500 gaseous compounds, where carbon dioxide is most harmful. The basic stream is made up of 35% of a burning cigarette, 50% are emitted in the air, which is the additional stream proper. It contains more carbon dioxide, nicotine and ammonia than the basic one.”
At the end of the note, the authors get more lyrical, “Today it’s not that easy to live a healthy life. The atmosphere is polluted despite the will of those who want to breathe fresh air.” And the punishment falls behind the weight of the crime. In the view of the MPs, to win victory over tobacco, it’s sufficient to prohibit smoking in taxies and buses, as well as “in stairwells of blocks of flats.”
Nizhny Novgorod MPs side with their opposite numbers from Karelia. However, they didn’t bother to find a cause for their initiative. Obviously, they thought that a 1.000-rouble fine is quite convincing. Ulyanovsk MPs are far more emollient. They believe that smoking in an improper place is subject to a 100-rouble fine.
You can find anti-tobacco novelties in two drafts only. They were introduced by federal MPs, but still they can be reputed vox populi because they don’t seem to have been approved by the ruling party and executive officials.
The first bill, which was signed by 23 members of the Federation Council, virtually suggests referring smoking in public places to violation of the Constitution, which contains a clause about “observing the right of individuals to life, health security and sanitary welfare.” So, the senators urge that large-scale measures be taken. First, they render it necessary to forbid smoking and allocating special zones for it in medical, educational, physical culture and sports organizations. Second, smoking areas must be isolated (to avoid “visual accessibility of the process of smoking”), with “cleanliness of the air” provided and posters about the harm of smoking put on the walls there.
Another breakthrough amendment was proposed by State Duma member Yury Napso of the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR). Basing on the existing ban on using a cell phone without the hands free system when driving, he concluded that smoking is no less dangerous when you drive, because “as you light up a cigarette, you don’t look at the road.” In this connection it’s suggested to charge drivers with a 500-rouble fine, and those who repeatedly break the law – with a fine ranging from 1.000 to 2.000 roubles.
Those entering and seducing
Traffic regulations are another issue so much beloved by regional authorities.
For example, the assembly of St.-Petersburg proposed to increase the fine for driving at busy crossroads from 100 to 1.000 roubles. In their view, “this law infringement is widespread in cities and is one of the reasons for traffic jams there.” To the Samara assembly, the problem of parking at improper places is more relevant. The low fines for these offences do not make drivers observe the rules. So, the fines must grow by 100-200 roubles. Those from the Krasnoyarsk region even decided to prohibit driving motor bikes.
Another favorite topic with lawmakers is struggle for morality in the mass media. State Duma members have recently taken up this issue as well.
Say, Boris Reznik from the city of Khabarovsk suggested imposing extra limitations on the mass media which publish or broadcast materials “targeted at creating sexual images with the audience.” Before shown, such programs must be preceded with warnings about “their sexual character.” Besides, erotic editions and “some papers and magazines containing erotic scenes” must be sold in specially allocated places. Moreover, they must be sold in packages.
Mr Reznik didn’t suggest changing the time of broadcasting erotic programs. Rather, his counterpart from the Chukotka region Sergey Kapkov introduced this bill. In his view, broadcasting such programs from 01 a.m. till 04 a.m. will “limit the negative impact of the mass media” and will “ensue reduction in radio and TV programs which exploit interest in sex.” Plus, the audience of programs of sexual character will decrease in number.
Other lawmakers attracted attention to the excess of negative things in the mass media. For example, State Duma members from the United Russia party Alexander Hinstein and Airat Hairllin suggested broadcasting programs where “using drugs and their impact on the organism” is displayed from 11 p.m. till 04 a.m.
The assembly of North Ossetia urged that journalists be prohibited from “using words and phrases distorting the norms of the Russian language, the official languages of the republics and peoples with the Russian Federation.”
The Kursk assembly found the best way of combating extremists on the Internet. The Kursk lawmakers proposed amending Article 7 of the law “On counteracting extremism,” which suggests liquidating a public organization via trial if it gets two notices within a year and is rendered extremist. In this case you’ll only need to warn any party or public organization once to make it loyal – the second warning will be last one for it.
Dmitry Kamyshev
All the Article in Russian as of June 23, 2008
|
|
|
