TOWARDS THE RULE OF LAW?
Is Russia moving, albeit slowly, toward the rule of law? In this section I bring together two pieces pertaining to different spheres that bear upon this question. They point in opposite directions. On the one hand, Alexander Verkhovsky argues that the new law against political extremism cannot be applied impartially and therefore invites arbitrariness and corruption. On the other hand, Kathryn Hendley's study of the working of the economic courts demonstrates the growing role played by the law in regulating relations between government and business in Russia. -- SDS
TOWARDS THE RULE OF LAW?
1. TAKING ANTI-EXTREMISM TO EXTREMES
By Alexander Verkhovsky (Panorama Center, Moscow)
Many proposals have been made since 1991 to reform legislation aimed at counteracting extreme nationalists and other political radicals. Not all these proposals have borne fruit, but one would hardly have expected an end-result quite as miserable as the draft that the president signed into law last month.
In the discussions of recent years there have been three key questions:
|
Is it necessary to adopt a special law containing a new definition of
"extremism" or "fascism"? Or would it suffice to make
specific changes to existing laws and apply them consistently? |
|
|
Which especially dangerous acts must be forbidden by law? |
|
|
What measures are required to achieve this purpose without posing a threat to civil liberties? |
The drafters of the new law have cut the Gordian knot by defining "extremism" more broadly than anyone expected and by imposing unprecedently harsh repressive measures against "extremist activity" thus defined. In the Duma the original draft was improved on certain points and made worse in others, but not changed in any fundamental respect.
Those who spoke against the law were mainly communists and their allies. Of the liberal deputies only the "Liberal Russia" fraction, one or two from the Union of Rightist Forces, and 5--10 (at different moments) from "Yabloko" voted against.
The law's main flaw is its excessively broad definition of extremist activity. Essential criteria like the public character of an act or the degree of social danger that it represents are absent.
The definition covers many admittedly reprehensible acts such as "insults to ethnic dignity," but without specifying how crude or serious such acts have to be in order to constitute a crime. The letter of the law demands prosecution of all these acts, even in borderline cases where someone claims that his or her ethnic dignity has been insulted by some minor breach of "political correctness."
The meaning of some kinds of "extremism" encompassed by the definition is incomprehensible. The law prohibits "the propaganda of exclusiveness, superiority or inferiority" but does not indicate the forms that such propaganda may take or the kinds of social group to which the provision applies. So if someone says that "capitalists are greedy" or even that "skinheads are no good," one cannot but perceive it as "extremist propaganda." To forbid "the propaganda of exclusiveness" of religious communities is to impose an extremely harsh constraint on the preaching of all the main religions.
Some kinds of "extremism" are simply absurd. Thus a ban is imposed on "symbols indistinguishable from Nazi symbols." As no exceptions are envisaged, that means that the ban covers swastikas used as religious symbols in Orthodox and Hindu places of worship and even swastikas that appear in an anti-fascist film.
Any technical assistance rendered to extremist activity also counts as extremism, even if the person providing the assistance -- one example mentioned is access to a fax machine -- is unaware that the beneficiaries are extremists.
All this is not sensational exaggeration but a literal reading of a very bad law -- one that contains more stupidities than I can enumerate here.
At the same time, the law introduces extremely simplified procedures for suppressing an organization, closing a periodical, or initiating a criminal prosecution. An organization or periodical can be closed down by court order without warning, while the activity of an organization can be suspended for up to half a year even without a court order. Incitement to anything labeled in the law as extremist activity, including any public statement that fails to meet the highest standards of tolerance, has become a criminal offence punishable by up to five years' imprisonment.
Thus the law makes it possible to suppress almost any organization (including any religious organization) and practically any publication, for even in the most respectable newspaper one can find the occasional sentence that is not "politically correct." It makes it possible to intimidate or jail the overwhelming majority of public and political figures.
Yet it is almost certain that the declared aim of the new law, the suppression of real extremist activity, will not be achieved. For the main complaint leveled against previous legislation by law enforcement agencies and the majority of experts was that it did not define with sufficient precision what propaganda statements should be considered criminal. Judges, public prosecutors, and police investigators have now been given an even vaguer and wider definition, and as a result will be even more confused. And the dishonest individuals among them will have even greater opportunities to apply the law in an arbitrary fashion, for it will be simply impossible to implement its provisions in full.
It is hard to agree with the Moscow representative of Human Rights Watch, who does not see in the new law an instrument of repression. Naturally, there will be no mass repressions: it is not the political moment for that. But such a law is an ideal instrument for selective repression, for repression in accordance with the requirements of a particular situation, and of course for corruption.
Indeed, in the Krasnodar Territory the authorities have already threatened human rights activists (in Novorossiisk) with the law, even prior to its adoption, merely for providing informational support to the peaceful protests of the Meskhetinian Turks, who are subjected to crude discrimination in the territory.
No doubt the adoption of the law marks the start of a new "campaign of struggle against extremism," which in itself is a good thing. The campaign has in fact already begun and even borne its first fruit: the closure of the infamous newspaper "Russkie vedomosti" [Russian Chronicle] for racist propaganda (and not just for formal infringements, as in the past). But any campaign runs out of steam after a while.
Of course, the struggle against extremism is advantageous to the president as a participant in the anti-terrorist coalition. But this particular law is hardly to his advantage, as the abuses to which it will give rise will outnumber its real successes, and Putin's coalition partners are bound to notice that this is so. In itself this even gives ground for cautious optimism. Perhaps in time the president will see the flaws in his brainchild and it will be possible to undo the harm done by this law to Russia's legal system. And then we shall be able to proceed to a genuine improvement of the legislative base for counteracting radical nationalists and other extremist groups.
In the meantime, one unfortunate consequence of the law is that it has become impossible to use the word "extremism" as a neutral term in political science, because it has acquired a juridical meaning. Any discussion of problems of ethnic, religious or social xenophobia has become problematic. If as a researcher I now name anyone in such a context, I am in effect accusing him or her of a crime, which both creates an ethical problem for me and exposes me to the risk of being sued for defamation of character.
NOTE ON SOURCES
The texts of laws, information on new developments, and a number of publications on the issue of state action against radical nationalists can be found at the site
http://www.panorama.ru/works/patr/govpol
Before the end of August the Center "Panorama" will release a book (in Russian) entitled "The State Against Radical Nationalism: What Should and Should Not Be Done?" The book contains more detailed discussion of the problem by myself and invited experts, including a full analysis of the new legislation. If you have any questions or wish to order the book, please contact me at averh@yandex.ru.
Next Article