|
The law "On Political Parties" has passed the second
decisive reading in parliament. The boldness manifested by the
deputies showed both to the people and to the Kremlin that when
it gets to epoch-making decisions, our Duma ceases to be a "pocket"
one.
At least, it became clear that if it is ever interested in anybody's
pockets, they are not necessarily the Kremlin's. Despite the remonstrance
of the official speaker of the president, general Kotenkov, party
lobbyists (at least, in this round) defended the article in the
new bill on "black cash", that is, asserted the right
of the parties to receive donations in ready money.
The intended tightening of control over the parties was relaxed
in one more point. At the suggestion of the Yabloko deputies,
it was decided that the party activities would not be supervised
by the Prosecutor General's Office as had been originally planned.
It would be the responsibility of the Department of Justice, which,
according to the general opinion, is not so unfeeling.
Not only that. The deputies passed an amendment aimed at increasing
party dignity, but not in the least interfering with the replenishment
of the party treasuries. The state support of the parties which
get at least 3 percent of the votes in the general elections and
12 chairs in the Duma will no longer be directly designated by
such an impolite phrase as "state financing". From now
on this crude phrase is palliated by the tactful clarification
that the state money only makes up for the expenses incurred by
the parties during election campaigns.
All that combined apparently indicates that even within the framework
of our political system which critics reprovingly describe as
"guided democracy", politicians are not afraid to argue
with the supreme power and can successfully uphold the points
they consider fundamental and vital. It remains to take a closer
look at those points.
As many as 261 deputies voted "yes" (the pro-Kremlin
"league of four" plus Yabloko). It is noteworthy that
the members of Yabloko, whose leader often describes Putin's regime
as "a corporate state", turned out to be the only force
outside the official camp which supported the law guarding solely
corporate interests.
A fundamental compromise regarding a new party law was reached
at the end of the previous year and was based on the following
agreement. The Kremlin temporarily puts off its plan to build
a "two or three party system" as soon as possible, while
the group of parties represented in today's Duma sacrifices the
parties which are not represented in the Duma in exchange for
preservation and consolidation of their current status.
As to hundreds of sham parties, their disappearance is not only
in the interests of the Duma but also of society, which is sick
and tired of their tommy-rot. It is a pity though that regional
political associations will also be deprived of their "party"
status. This is not a wise move, since it will be impossible to
remove the tenacious ones from politics anyway.
But it was only incidentally that the parties of this interesting
Kremlin-party dispute touched on a most important and main point
— they became thoroughly engrossed in discussing the burning issue
of "black cash". That is the problem of party influence
on executive power. To put it more precisely, the problem is that
such an influence is completely lacking today.
Some parties may say that their members or sympathizers hold
administrative offices, but none of them can boast of the fact
that their programmes or the wishes of their elective bodies are
more important to those officials than the guidelines of their
bosses. Therefore the clause protecting officials from these kind
of "party" influences appears an absolutely superfluous
precaution.
The experiments of the 90s with "party" governments
– first democratic and then leftist – seem to be ancient history
and are almost completely forgotten. The "party" governors
(mostly communists) elected in many places have long forgotten
about their accountability to their own parties and are completely
lost amidst the masses of nomenklatura.
Normal, not nominal, parties declare certain management principles.
Society in general, but nobody individually, is virtually interested
in the administrative decisions being taken not in the secret
clash of clannish interests, but rather in accordance with distinctly
and publicly proclaimed principles. Common people, following the
established tradition, are keeping silent for the time being.
As for the administrative circles, nobody there really needs the
"partization" of power today.
In the eyes of the lower and middle bureaucracy, the "party"
regime appears a burdensome restriction of liberty. The Kremlin,
so long as it has any time to tackle the issues of party organization,
perceives this challenge as the expansion and improvement of Unity,
a solely auxiliary, tame and subordinate body. As for the bureaucrats
of functioning Duma parties, including those "in opposition",
they feel too comfortable in their parliamentary apartments and
too fearful of political responsibility to fight in earnest for
power and influence, though sometimes they complain of oppression.
True, SPS (The Union of the Right-wing Forces), revived just
the other day, claims to be a party of a new type, talks about
its "own" wing in the government, promises to enter
the regions and even predicts its own victory in the coming presidential
elections.
The community of parliamentary parties has got its cash and is
going to subsist on it now. It is possible to live both merrily
and affluently in this way, but only given that the neatly cleaned
and comfortable political arena won't be suddenly flooded by some
uninvited, unplanned and mass movements.
| 