|
Such restrictions should not be abolished, otherwise the State Duma will
be transformed into a banal shop for making money. Going into power a
candidate, moreover a candidate from a one-mandate electoral district,
should make a decision: either business or legislature. The fact that we
in Russia cannot oppose deputies-lobbyists does not mean that we should
eliminate the restrictions on business activity [for parliament
members].
On the contrary, lobbying should become a transparent process, but
should be performed by special people - lobbyists, rather than deputies.
At present it looks like this: as soon as a deputy enters the Duma he
begins promoting privileges and subsidies for his enterprise.
Democracy is a ritual. And it is accepted in the world to adopt
decisions in favour of large corporations via lobbyists. According to
the logics of deputy Semyonov, in this way we can legalise drugs dealing
and prostitution. However much as deputy is dependent on large
enterprises or his business, his interests should be on the side of the
electorate. As early as the beginning of the 1990s Gavriil Popov (Ed.
the former Mayor of Moscow) proposed legalising entrepreneurial activity
for deputies [of the parliament], but this proposal was turned down as
marginal. There should be a least some balance between the state and
business.
In addition, as elections approach, deputies recollect that they
should have some independence: the vote on housing and communal reform
represents a good example. With great difficulty representatives of the
government managed to find some one-mandate constituency deputies (Ed.
that are not members of any parties) who voted for the housing and
communal reform. Their protest can be attributed to the fact that this
sector does not directly affect them.
See also:
"Deputies do not have to be lawyers, but they should work as
politicians, rather than businessmen." By Sergei Mitrokhin. Gazeta.ru,
December 2, 2002.
|
