#8 - JRL 2006-174 - JRL Home
Russia Profile
August 2, 2006
A Dangerous Cocktail for Democracy
Amendments to Law on Extremism Take Effect
By Dmitry Babich

The amendments to the federal law on extremism, signed into law by President Vladimir Putin at the end of July, provoked a heated debate and resulted in some unlikely bedfellows.

Many lawmakers were enraged by the section of legislation specifying punishment for “seditious libel” among state officials. A candidate for an elected body who indulges in “publicly slandering a person holding a state office,” can be barred from running. The same may happen to a party that uses extremist or racist rhetoric in its official statements. The law’s opponents say that elected officials could use these provisions against their political opponents.

“What if someone in a small town yells at a rally ‘Our mayor is an idiot’?” asked Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent Duma deputy and a prominent critic of Putin, in an interview with Rossyiskaya Gazeta. “I bet in every town you will find a policeman who will be stupid enough to interpret this [provision] as a call for the violent overthrow of the constitutional order.”

Additionally, opponents of the new amendments say the existing law is strong enough to combat extremism, and does not need the additions. The law on combating extremist activity, which was signed into effect on July 25, 2002, penalizes groups or individuals for inciting racial, ethnic or religious hatred or for calling for a violent overthrow of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation. The bill also prohibits the exhibition of Nazi symbols and paraphernalia and spreading extremist views via mass media and the Internet. According to the 2002 law, organizations that are involved in extremist activities can be disbanded or banned by a court decision. Once a suit is filed against a particular organization, their activity can be stopped pending a judgment.

Most experts believe these procedures sufficiently empowered the courts, police and prosecutor’s office to curb the extremist groups that have appeared in Russia – but the authorities are often reluctant to use these laws.

“The authorities have all the appropriate legislation in order to fight racists,” said Valery Borshchev, head of the Russian Research Center on Human Rights and a former Duma deputy. “They just lack the desire and political will to really fight extremism.”

In addition to the questionable need for the new amendments, their opponents remain wary of the motivations behind them. The addendums were the brainchild of the Public Chamber, a consultative body seen as an alternative to the country’s traditionally liberal civil society and comprising a wide range of people from around the country, some of whom were handpicked by president Putin. In previous years, calls for additional legislation on racism coming from liberal parties such as Yabloko were widely ignored. Now that the Public Chamber has taken up the initiative, there has been some action. Public Chamber members explain that they are trying to solve one of the country’s burning problems without pursuing any political goals.

At its first meeting on Jan. 22, 2006, the Public Chamber identified the fight against racism as one of its first tasks. The Chamber’s working group on racism issued a statement saying: "Any manifestations of ethnic or religious discord, any calls for hatred and intolerance, must mean the end of their authors' public and political career in Russia."

In June, several Chamber members proposed changes to the 2002 law, with the goal of “stopping persons and political parties using extremist rhetoric from penetrating the state structures.” One of the group’s suggestions was “to establish new elements of responsibility in the form of denying registration or canceling registration of the candidates and political parties for actions that can be described as extremist.”

The Duma took these suggestions even further, however, by including the language on seditious libel.

In an unfortunate turn of events, the amendments to the law on extremism were adopted on the same day as changes to the laws covering elections and referendums. Even Alexander Veshnyakov, the usually Kremlin-friendly chairman of the Central Electoral Commission, noted that these two bills together created a dangerous cocktail that could be deadly for democracy in Russia.

“You suggest that a person, whose statements have indications of being extremist, should not have the right to be a candidate at elections,” Veshnyakov said addressing the Duma in July. “But aren’t there other methods of punishing the extremists, including jail terms? Besides, if one of a party’s candidates is found to be extremist, [according to the new law] this can be reason enough for taking all of this party’s list of candidates off the ballot. But the whole party cannot be held responsible for the actions of just one of its candidates.”

Following Veshnyakov’s address, Alexander Kosopkin, the president’s representative to the Duma, said that the Kremlin did not share these “dramatic views.”

“Veshnyakov’s concerns are understandable,” said Sergei Markov, head of the pro-Kremlin Institute of Political Research. “But, the situation just could not continue. The practice when parties and media deliberately give a floor to extremist politicians in order to cater to discontented audiences is unacceptable for a civilized country.”