In society

Crooked crook of abundance

November 18, 2005 Alexander Cherkasov

On November 18, during the third reading in the budget-2006, an additional article was made: on the development of democracy in Russia and abroad, “on state financial support of non-profit organizations” it is planned to spend half a billion rubles of official money.

As said with Fazil Iskander, "an interesting undertaking, by the way ..."

Indeed, the United States spend considerable means on this very development of democracy, so what are we worse? Moreover, the complete oil -eater in the country. So, maybe it's good?

Indeed, suddenly the state decided to build its domestic and foreign policy in accordance with who, how and where is human rights? Or, conversely, violates ...

After all, state support for public organizations can be very useful: activists-lawyers will become vigilant auditors, checking where there is a mess.

True, it is in this place that the problem arises: how to resist the temptation to give those who say that everything is fine? Here comes to a dining room of a dining room overpopulated by cockroaches and rats, receives a grant wrapped in parchment paper from the chef and cheerfully announces: “As in the best Parisian restaurants!” In order to avoid such suspicions, you should think three times before taking it from “your own”. Reputation, you know.

But after all, the state is also interested in not suspecting him of giving bribes. For example, in Germany, budgetary money “Civil Society” is divided between funds - Bullya, Adenauer, etc. - created in political parties, including opposition, in accordance with the share of votes received in the elections. And then these funds give out money.
Another question: how to avoid corruption, so that it is not given to “their own”, but worthy? There is also a world experience: a system of open contests, observation councils, and so on.

Finally, how to define goals? Where is Russia going to develop democracy? For example, I wonder where the "compatriots" flee to us? Really from the Baltic countries? After all, we have almost a cold war with them, because the Russian -speaking population is oppressed there.

So it is so, but for some reason nothing is heard about the executions of the rallies of the defenders of Russian schools in the center of Riga. Nowhere have I met a message about the “cleansing” of the suburbs of the Latvian capital, that the “invaders” are delivered to the “filters” if they do not pay at a dachshund in armor. And Daugavpils with Ventspils are not turned into ruins with artillery fire and bombing from the air ...

And they flee to us primarily from Asia, once a middle one, now-central. But we wanted dual citizenship with Ukraine, from where they did not seem to run. But with Turkmenia, where they would be happy to escape, but they don’t give it, we are dual citizenship - the last protection of “compatriots” - we canceled.

And the "hero of Andijan" Islam Karima is now our best friend.

And I don’t understand something with the separatists: while we are talking about Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where Russia gives citizenship to everyone, this is good. And in Chechnya, separatism for some reason was bad ... And Shamil Basayev, who fought in Abkhazia, was also good-he became bad when he began to do the same on this side of the Great Caucasian Range.

How to understand this? And if this is not a double standard, then what?

Probably, with the aim of correcting the above excesses, the Duma of half a billion “to society” wrote.

Now a report on the state of human rights will be prepared at least in the former Soviet republics - so that everything is according to one standard. And then they will give money to support democracy. With open contests, with observation councils, with reports and transparency ... And in Russia, money will not be given money to their own pocket “social activists”, but independent and fundamental. So that all the ulcers open and the vices scourge, regardless of the faces ...

Here is a public chamber. Probably, money will go through it - so what? I will be glad to find out that this is not a "collection of voiced consonants." But so far the only signal is that the “right” public will deal with “small things”. And something takes me doubt that this money will go to improve public control over the state. Or, conversely, on the "creation of a positive image"?

Here, by the way, my colleagues were addressed for reports on human rights, but in Georgia and Ukraine. Such, you know, electoral care for the neighbors. It seems that everything is still: not our policy regarding a country is determined by the state of human rights in it, but vice versa. Here in the States, for example, "blacks were lynched." And in Germany there were "prohibitions on the profession." And the Politsyki - also with them, Angela Davis and his comrades. And their shortcomings are playing the “wick” of the name Mikhalkov. However, the latter is already successfully revived ...

But we will not make a guess. The benefits of this venture are still not obvious - however, as well as harm. In the absence of a single standard of human rights, open and competitive distribution of budget funds, money may well sank into nowhere, without making a noticeable impact on life in the country and beyond its lines.

Or, with the words of the same Iskander, "an interesting undertaking, but not for our climate."

Author - member of the board of society "Memorial" Alexander Cherkasov

---

All rights to materials located on the EJ.ru website are protected in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, including copyright and related rights. With any use of the site and satellite projects, hyperlink (Hyperlink) on EJ.ru is required.