10:54 AM
Trung
Presidential ombudsman Mikhail Fedotov discusses his plan for rejuvenating Russian civil society.
 |
| Mikhail Fedotov, presidential ombudsman. Photo by Serge Golovach |
Moscow News: What sort of document are you going to send to the president?
Mikhail Fedotov: It should be a massive
program for creating the right conditions for development of a civil
society and human rights safeguards. The measures should help create the
mental outlook required for the country’s modernization, which is
impossible without modernization of public consciousness, social
relations and behavior patterns.
Under a totalitarian system, a person’s consciousness and
perceptions are formed under the impact of constant psychological and,
sometimes physical, pressure. Under such a system, the individual is not
free, but a foot soldier of the party and the state, a cog in its wheel
performing a certain type of activity. The totalitarian state has
produced certain types of behavior reflecting people’s dependence on
government. Can a person with such a mindset become a modernizer? Of
course not, because he assumes that his fate is decided by the boss and
is not in his own hands. The Soviet system collapsed 20 years ago, but
these stereotypes did not go away.
MN: What recommendations will you make?
M.F.: We are in the early stages of
preparing the program, and it is important to define its basic
underlying values. As I told the president [during a meeting on Mar. 21], it is important for people to first, have
access to real justice; second, to know the truth about what is
happening around them; and third, to feel themselves to be free. An
awareness of justice, truth and freedom is essential, because sometimes a
person simply does not understand that he is free, has no sense of this
and is unable to escape from the labyrinth of unwritten taboos.
MN: You said recently that you would give
the president a package of laws that would make the Constitution work.
What constitutional provisions need stronger legislative support? What
legislation is ready?
M.F.: This refers to the second chapter
of the Constitution. So far, our legislators have rough drafts of just
two articles, the famous Article 31, guaranteeing freedom of assembly;
and Article 21, which states that nothing may serve as the basis for
denigrating human dignity. We have to come up with ways to make these
constitutional norms effective through balancing the rights, obligations
and responsibilities of all.
MN: Do you mean responsibility of the authorities towards society?
M.F.: Mutual responsibility of the
authorities and every citizen. We want the citizen to feel responsible
for his or her mission on Earth. That is why we stress the need for the
population to become a body of citizens, thus transforming it into the
multinational people of Russia that the Constitution proclaims to be the
sole source of power in the land.
Of course it is important to make the state cater to the
interests of society effectively. The state, which appears to be no more
than a bureaucratic anthill, cannot have its own interests, it is
merely a political organization of society. No more than that.
MN: But in this country it is more than that.
M.F.: A state that pursues its own goals
that differ from the interests of society inevitably becomes
dysfunctional and eventually collapses. However, society should not see
the state as a nanny. It should make the state cater to society’s
interests effectively. The heaps of unresolved problems are largely the
result of society failing to put pressure on the state, of a lack of
initiative within society to organize itself and assume responsibility
for meeting many of its own interests.
MN: Article 31 of the Constitution is
associated with the rallies on Triumphalnaya Ploshad in defense of that
article. Do your proposals have something to say about the practice of
notification and organization of rallies? Will that procedure be
simplified?
M.F.: Such proposals are sure to be made
as work on the project proceeds. In the meantime, we are trying to
clarify the goals and propose a system of means to achieve the declared
goals. Then we will discuss resources, the sequence of steps, etc.
Ultimately, the document that will land on the president’s desk will
state that such and such a law must be passed, such and such a decree
must be issued, envisaging this and that.
MN: How quickly do you hope to be able to eradicate the stereotypes that have taken shape over centuries?
M.F.: Actually, the Bolsheviks managed to
do it very quickly. The behavior stereotypes in Tsarist Russia were
very different from those that became widespread in the first 20 years
of Soviet rule. Now we have to restructure public awareness just as
drastically while offering it a totally different moral content, methods
and goals.
We should not herd people into the kind of democratic
social law-governed state that our Constitution describes. We should
instill in them self-discipline, self-organization, a readiness to act
rather than be couch potatoes.
MN: Are you sure that Russian society seeks such independence?
M.F.: Sponging is still strong in
society. You hear from all sides: “give us money,” “give us houses.” We
want to see a change of motivation and, consequently, the nature of
demands. What is needed is freedom of initiative, resources for
independent rendering of social services and responsibility for the
quality and scope of such services. It is important to encourage people
to come forward and assume management of society’s affairs and only ask
from the state what they cannot obtain by themselves.
MN: An independent society has the right
to demand greater political freedom. Am I right in thinking that you
want economic modernizaton to go hand in hand with the modernization of
the political system?
M.F.: Yes, you could say that. But the
impetus towards political change should come from the grassroots and not
from the top. Political parties should grow out of the process of
social self-organization. Of course, they can be organized from the top
down. But simulation will not yield any useful results.
We should shake society out of its slumber rather than
pretending to be “bright eyed and bushy-tailed.” We should stop showing
society propaganda dreams that lull it into complacency. The ideology of
passive docility should be replaced with that of modernization, which
is why the [Presidential Human Rights] Council is concerned about
education, upbringing, and fostering of modern ideas about the world
through the media. Look at what the national TV channels show. Do they
encourage people to come up with new initiatives? No. Our television is
aimed at housewives.
MN: But housewives are the majority and they are anything but a modernizing class.
M.F.: I see no reason why a housewife
cannot be a modernizer. For instance, she can join the management of her
residential area or a movement for clean streets, start a blog on how
to bring up children. Little by little, our housewives will become
citizens of our common home, Russia.
MN: But the elite should also be open to modernization. Do you think the political class is ready to change?
M.F.: Not in my opinion. The political
class today is quite happy with a sense of stability. High oil prices,
they think, guarantee stability. But that cannot be the basis for the
long-term policy of a modern state. High oil prices failed to preserve
stability in Libya.
MN: Is this the impression you got from
the way the bureaucrats reacted to your proposals? And, how are you
going to monitor whether your initiatives are being followed?
M.F.: I can’t say that bureaucrats are
very forthcoming in their relations with the Council. Sometimes we have
problems with the government agencies that have been charged with
fulfilling the president’s instructions based on our initiatives.
MN: You announced not so long ago that a
public review of the second trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsksy and Platon
Lebedev is due to start soon and that you would bring in foreign experts
to do this work. Why do you need foreign legal scholars?
M.F.: It doesn’t matter to us whether or
not they are foreign. What matters is whether or not they are experts in
the relevant areas of the science of law and are independent and not
beholden to any interests. That’s what is important to us.
MN: In other words, by inviting foreign lawyers, you want your opinion to be more convincing?
M.F.: What is important is that there
will be many experts from different countries, Russian law scholars
included. To repeat, the key thing is that they should be independent,
top-class specialists.
rbth,ru
Posted in: 
0 comments:
Post a Comment