|
The Duma approved the law on political parties at its third reading;
it will now be submitted to the Federation Council. However, it
is not ruled out that the Federation Council may reject it: then
this law would have to be reconsidered by the lower house. The
Duma would have to continue working on this law together with
the upper house, as only 238 deputies voted for it, whereas at
least 300 votes are required to override a Federation Council
veto.
The number of supporters of the law was so small because the
Duma Committee for Public Organizations rejected all amendments
during the second reading. Therefore, the Communists, the Agrarians,
and the Union of Right-Wing Forces (SPS) did not support the law
on June 21. Each faction had its own reasons for voting against
the law. Thus, the law would have failed to pass without the Yabloko
faction's support. Yabloko voted in favour, as the committee had
complied with their amendment, which stated that prosecutors should
be excluded from the list of
those who will inspect political parties.
Another important law considered by the Duma on June 21, 2001,
concerned
amendments to the law on the media, restricting ownership by foreign
individuals and companies in the Russian media industry. This
law first appeared during the final stage of the NTV network scandal,
when various options for deciding the fate of the TV company were
being discussed. Some of these options involved foreign
media magnates buying NTV. At that time, a group of Duma deputies
proposed that foreigners should be banned from owning a controlling
interest in Russian
media. Their position had been considerably modified by the second
reading, partly due to President Putin's opinion on this issue.
On June 21, they proposed a law that would affect only the four
nationwide TV networks: ORT, RTR, NTV, and TV-6. Radio, the print
media, and regional TV companies were excluded from this list.
This law was not passed, as it was rejected by the Communists,
the Agrarians, the SPSand Yabloko. The SPS considers that there
should be as few restrictions for foreign investors as possible,
while the left wing says that foreign participation in such an
important area as television should be no greater than 30%. A
member of the Duma Information Committee argued against both viewpoints
and tried to prove that the initial draft is the compromise version.
However, his arguments had no effect, and the law gathered only
223 votes, needing at least 226 to pass.
Another law considered by the Duma concerned procedures for accepting
a new member of the Russian Federation or founding a new region.
The second reading of this law had been in preparation since December
1999. Although 300 votes were required for adoption of this law,
it was supported by 391 deputies. Not a single deputy asked a
question or made a comment during the discussion of this law.
The success of this law may be attributed to the fact that its
postulates are virtually irrelevant now. Disputed issues related
to integration between Belarus and
Russia that have been discussed for the past few years are not
resolved by this law. The essence of this law is that any foreign
state can sign a treaty to accede the Russian Federation, even
if this state does not share a border with Russia. A state can
also agree with the Russian government on part of its territory
being annexed by the Russian Federation. As for founding a new
region on the basis of two or more existing regions, this issue
should be resolved by referenda in all regions intending to merge.
It is worth noting that the main role in mergers between regions
is accorded to their legislatures.
At the end of the Duma plenary session on June 21 deputies considered
three alternative laws on the privatisation of municipal and state
property. One of the drafts was proposed by the Cabinet, the other
two by the left and right in the Duma. However, the authors of
the two alternatives to the Cabinet's draft can only hope that
their amendments will be taken into account during the second
reading.
Alexander Kotenkov, presidential representative in the Duma, says
that the Cabinet has not taken any decision on the alternative
drafts presented by the Duma minorities, since the authors have
not set out their financial and economic references. Kotenkov
stressed that according to the Constitution, these laws do not
have to be considered by the lower house. It they are considered
and one of them is adopted by the Duma, the president is entitled
to reject it without any explanation.
Nevertheless, all three alternatives were discussed by the Duma
on June 22. The first speaker on these drafts was Deputy Property
Minister Alexander Braverman. He noted that the Cabinet's draft
contains the compromise alternative of distributing privatisation
powers between different branches of government. The list of non-strategic
enterprises is supposed to be approved by a government
resolution, and the list of strategic enterprises is to be approved
by a presidential decree. With regards privatisation of natural
monopolies, such as Russian Joint
Energy Systems (RAO ES), Gazprom, and Russian Railroads, their
privatisation may be permitted by a federal law.
Braverman said that the Cabinet would also present to the Duma
a list of entities subject to privatisation before the start of
each budget year, and at the end of the year it would account
for the results of privatisation. The Cabinet proposes that all
potentially saleable assets should be divided into two groups.
The first group should include enterprises worth over five million
times the minimum monthly wage, and the second group should include
the remaining enterprises.
The enterprises in the first group may be privatised only by
auction or tender. The range of methods of privatisation will
be wider for the second group.
Braverman also noted that the Cabinet's draft envisages social
security measures for the employees of privatised enterprises.
For instance, according to the Cabinet's draft, work contracts
cannot be changed for three months after privatisation of an enterprise.
As we went to print, the authors of the two alternative laws
were praising their own work and severely criticizing the draft
proposed by the Cabinet. However, the silent pro-presidential
majority was waiting for the moment when it could vote as the
government wishes.
|
