In society

Where will the judges come from

June 23, 2009 Alexander Osovtsov

You can not immediately build happiness
on centuries -old ruins of torment

E. Bazin

Sometimes I really want to seriously talk and argue about really important things, and opposition here is more in the way. Indeed, what's the point of arguing with representatives of the authorities, which most often wants to just joke, and sometimes even joke awkwardly? Of course, it is possible to ironize the people who simultaneously concluded the Customs Union with Belarus and started a trade war, but how can you think about the feelings of Orthodox Christians, which their famous co-religionist explained that to die without a fight, and even have a short sword (without the slightest irony: Putin heard something about the Taehnaya Village and what was followed by it?) Fore at least temporarily. And discuss something substantial.

True, many of our supporters do not like the disputes between opposition and consider a sign of weakness. This, in my opinion, is wrong. We are not in the Gryzlovsk Duma, so as not to conduct discussions that are not only interesting to us, but also important in terms of understanding our plans. And although I am sure that all the same, many will be outraged by the fact that I am going to not quite agree with Khodorkovsky, I consider it important to continue the conversation started by the MBH, and I think that he did not start him so that everything in his text would approve.

Actually, I do not significantly agree with Khodorkovsky only in one point of his reasoning, but in the rest I agree. I will make a reservation: I do not exclude the fact that the chairman of the board of Open Russia, where I also had the honor and pleasure, preferred just such a controversial option for solving the problem that I want to discuss, consciously. After all, he turned to President Medvedev, and, therefore, was obliged to take into account the degree of acceptability of his proposals for the addressee. I turn to Khodorkovsky, to readers, and therefore is not limited by any considerations of acceptability.

It is about how a person becomes a judge. Let me remind you that Khodorkovsky offers the election of judges by a professional community of lawyers-prosecutors-from among their colleagues who have experience working on both sides of the judicial “barrier”. These, as well as other, age -related, restrictions on candidates for a judge represent me quite justified, but the very way of election is not. And the point is not only, and not so much, that at the moment the ratio of Ustinov and Shokhin among prosecutors, on the one hand, and Schmidt and Moskalenko among lawyers - on the other, does not seem quite favorable to me. The main thing that is not achieved with this option for the formation of the judicial corps - the feedback between judges and potential defendants, i.e. Each of us citizens. In the Khodorkovsky scheme, alienation remains albeit exclusively by the judicial, but the judicial corporation from the whole other people. This scheme, of course, offers progress even in this paragraph compared with the appointment of judges by bureaucrats from Old Square. The professional community is a big step forward, but, in my opinion, insufficient.

It does not matter sufficient and at the same time necessary today the election of lower -level judges, whether regional or inter -district. Yes, not everyone should be able to become a candidate for a judge, as mentioned above, but he must receive the mandate to judge citizens from themselves. Just like the one who will catch and detain them is the head of the district police, and the one who is authorized on behalf of the state to put forward a criminal prosecution against a citizen - a district prosecutor. I will not talk about governors.

There is no doubt about the correctness of Yu. Latinina , who claims that the masses of the poor and those who only hope for the help of the state of voters can choose any rogue even to district judges, even to dictators. But from this analytical correctness, the answer to the question of how to solve the problem does not directly follow. To introduce property qualifications in the 21st century is also unethical, and irrational, and unprogramatic. To restore the monarchy - the procedure for determining the monarch “at the start”, as we recall from the history of the emergence of the Romanov House, is no different from the elections, and subsequently, as we recall from the history of this house, does not guarantee the absence of executioners or mediocrity on the throne. This means that it remains to hold elections, achieving their honesty and maximum competitiveness. And on the federal, and, no less important and more important, at the lower level. Niza elections differ from nationwide more understandability and sensitivity for the voter, unless, of course, elected representatives of the authorities have essential and sufficient powers. I think that for a large number of citizens, the meaning of judges, including arbitration and even the world, is quite clear. And when conducting election campaigns “on the ground” there is an opportunity to judge the candidates live, i.e. With greater reliability. It is no coincidence that a way out of corruption-mass rot, thanks to the victory in the election of new political forces, was able primarily in a country such as Singapore-small in population and compact in area.

Of course, they do not give any guarantees. But they give something no less important - hope. Because even with an unsuccessful, erroneous choice, some of the voters, of course, will be disappointed in the tool and will be unhappy with the election procedure itself, but the other part will present a claim to itself and will vote more reasonably and critically next time. The main thing is that this next time comes on time.

The election of the maximum number of officials in different branches of power, in addition to creating a democratic tradition and electoral habit, significantly increases the degree of responsibility of these persons to not just fellow citizens from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean, but to the neighbors. A large number of such performers are one of the most important features of democracy.

Of course, such a reform requires not only the private reorm of legislation, but the reform of the Constitution, or rather, the adoption of a new one. But the current president himself recently showed that the Constitution is not an eternal and unchanging. Although, returning to what I started this column, I cannot but admit that the hopes that Medvedev would follow the proposals of Khodorkovsky are very ghostly, and even more radical ...

In general, it is good that in Russia there are still people whose intellect and civic position stimulate conversations and disputes about important things for the country. It is bad that practically none of these people has the opportunity to realize their ideas, and some even sit in prison.

Photo www.svedm.biz