The form is above the content?

One of the main events of the outgoing week that I allocated for myself, along with the arrest of a deputy of the KSKO (by the way, this news caused me some devastation), a discussion in the Public Chamber of the construction of the construction projects at the Palace of Pioneers and the beginning of the formation of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, was a discussion on the pages of the media and in news feeds of the deputies of the Kirov region “on the public chamber of the Kirov region”.

This legislative initiative was discussed on the air of the Echo of Moscow, and I gave my assessment to what was happening there. But, after this broadcast, as well as reading several different publications in regional publications, I was drawn to the primary sources.

Those who still managed to unlearn in the Soviet higher school remember how we were seriously prepared in humanitarian subjects, especially deeply and thoroughly gave us philosophy. I have instilled love for this science since then. So, the zeal with which our colleagues from Kosko began a discussion of the need for changes in the legislation regulating the activities of OPKO, involuntarily forced me to turn to philosophical treatises, which describes the ratio of form and content.

To whom, if not to the works of the old man Hegel, I had to look. So, sharply criticism of metaphysical ideas about matter, Hegel formulates the thesis about the interdependence of matter and form. At the same time, for a more adequate expression of the essence of the relationship between the defined and defined, Hegel introduces the category “content”, which includes the form and matter of “removed moments”: the content is embraced by both the form of both matter and matter, and thus has a certain form and some matter of which it forms. According to Hegel, the relationship between the form and content is an essential attitude, a typical case of the relationship of dialectical opposites.

It is unfortunate that our legislators neglect the simplest laws of philosophy. In my opinion, before starting to change something, one should properly study its current state: what is the current public chamber? How does it correspond to its purpose? How effective does it perform tasks assigned to it? etc. etc.

But if, a) the chamber does not correspond to the mission laid on it by the legislator and b) this discrepancy is due precisely the order of its formation, then let's urgently make changes to this order.

Another important detail. The Federation Council is currently initiated by the model law “On the Public Chamber of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation”. This is reasonable, since amendments to the Law on the Civil Defense and Enterprise, which provides for a new format for the formation of the CPF, where representatives of all constituent entities of the Federation will be delegated. It is logical at this stage to harmonize the legislation governing the activities of the chambers. Consequently, the work of our regional legislators can go “to the basket”.

One way or another, the Public Chamber, which has already firmly entered the public life of the region, will exist with the old or new law, and the members of the chamber will also fulfill their obligations, regardless of changes in the legislative basis of the activity of this institution.

I would really like to develop relations in interaction with our legislative body, to combine our efforts on various problems of the social life of the region. However, I cannot boast of such examples.

But, as they say, there is no art without good. In recent days, when there was a discussion of this legislative initiative, interest in the Public Chamber has increased: the mention has grown, as well as the number of visits to the website of the chamber.

Original