RIA Novosti
July 7, 2005
The Public Chamber: both pros and cons evident
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Vasily Kononenko). The federal law "On the Public Chamber" entered into force on July 1.
It has very possibly sparked more controversy and more debate than any other single law in all of Russia's fourteen years of reform. Under the law the authorities are to set up a 126-member body that will oversee the activities of the authorities. The Chamber is meant to act as the conscience of the nation and to protect citizens from ill-considered government measures. Yet even before its members have been selected, it is being predicted that the Chamber will meet the same sad fate as other institutions of civil society, which seem to have quietly integrated themselves into the vertical power structures.
Russians are clearly concerned about the way in which this very important institution is being established. In particular, they are alarmed by the principle on which the Chamber is to be formed.
As you are probably aware, the president has been granted jus primae nocti. He will appoint the first 42 representatives from among Russian citizens who have rendered special services to society and the state, "prophets" in their own country, as it were. Then during the second stage these "appointees" will select 42 candidates from federal public organizations. These candidates cannot be party representatives or senior officials. During the third stage the 84 representatives will select a further 42 representatives from regional organizations. Therefore, the administration will in theory be able to count on the loyalty of two-thirds of the 126 members, and it is this that lies at the heart of the controversy. It is one thing to nominate candidates from the grass roots, and quite another when judges are appointed from above by those whom these judges are to judge.
For this reason it is being assumed that the Kremlin will be calling the shots. One of the men involved in drafting the law, Valery Fadeyev, even acknowledged in an interview, "Yes, that is how it will be." He then added, "This is perfectly acceptable because the president is trusted more than anyone." This is not a very compelling argument and does little to assuage fears, but at least it clarifies the issue somewhat. And then there are the optimistic State Duma deputies and political experts who list a number of points in favor of the Chamber: it will be instituted by law, rather than by the president; it will report to the Federal Assembly, not to the president; it will be non-partisan; it will have its own budget so it can invite independent experts to assess whether bills and decisions made by the executive branch are "harmful" to society.
Experience shows that even the best laws and best intentions sometimes prove disastrous. This was the case with the law replacing benefits in kind with cash payments. Though the intentions behind the law were good, the reaction it provoked was little short of a nationwide revolt. Therefore, none of the arguments and declarations that the Public Chamber will be fair and independent can be seen as indisputable. In this situation there is no choice but to trust in well-known and respected people, as the law envisages. But the doubts just will not go away.
No sooner was the law enacted than the caustic comments began to flow, comments like, "I know who will be appointed to the Chamber - the people who signed the letter to Izvestia." You may recall that Izvestia recently printed a letter signed by 50 prominent personalities, including cultural figures, scientists and cosmonauts, in which they defended the Russian authorities and judiciary in the face of criticism over the Khodorkovsky affair. The letter surprised many people. Each of the signatories is undoubtedly an authoritative individual, but the collective nature of the letter was somewhat off-putting. This was probably because these very different individuals are not known to share similar views. There must be a puppet-master! And this puppet-master is not being named! And therefore such appeals are immediately perceived to be fraudulent and deceptive.
In general, collective letters have odious associations and look like nothing more than dirty political tricks. It would be much more logical if ahead of the selection of Chamber candidates the media conducted a nationwide poll to find out who the most respected people in the country are. And as distinct from current practice, the decisive factor should be the public popularity of a given individual rather than their closeness to the administration. Then the results of the poll should be compiled, and the president could act on this list.
It is to be hoped that neither the president nor the government will shoot themselves in the foot. It would be an unpardonable mistake to originate a civil institution of such stature only to find that it could not get off the ground. It will soon be known whether this is the case. The law provides 30 days for the selection of the 42 "prophets."