Programs - Round Table

Lev Roitman:

The Constitution of the 93rd year defines Russia as a legal state. At the same time, these are the final and transitional provisions of the Constitution, those legal norms that have been in force in Russia earlier are applied only if they do not contradict the new constitution. Earlier, Soviet laws were subject to, but even earlier the laws of the Russian Empire were in force, is it possible to apply them or is it absurd? Professor-historian Andrei Zubov, he participates in the program, believes that it is not only possible, but also necessary, this is the only way to restore the supremacy of the law in Russia, the period of revolutionary and legal banditry can be thrown back. For the philosopher Igor Chubais, he also participates in the program, he is the author of the book "Russia in search of himself", the problem of succession is only part of the huge task of creating the concept of the new Russia. We will also listen to a specialist in state law - the doctor of legal sciences Vladimir Guliev participates in the transfer.

A project for Russia - is it possible to leave during the pre -Soviet period and from there to move to the future? Andrei Borisovich Zubov, in my question, I understand that there is a share of skepticism, this is natural, even more so for a journalist.

Andrey Zubov:

I think that a return to those bases that were simply destroyed in the 17th year, destroyed by direct violence, is not only possible, but absolutely necessary in moral terms. From a legal point of view, what happened in the 17th can be qualified as a gangster seizure of power with the help of force and destruction, if possible, all the carriers of this power, a full seizure of all the property that were in the country at the moment, redistributing them in their favor, and the retention of the power that have had a very long period of time during a very long period. If we are trying to build new Russia on the basis of this gangster action, however for a long time, we are thereby accomplices of crime, well, roughly speaking, the bucchers of the stolen one. If we, say, redistribute the property by privatization, forgetting that these property were not not worth it, that they once belonged to certain people whose who were taken away, who were very often killed or expelled for this, then we are all the same as the accomplices of those who killed and expelled. And therefore, the return to the moment when the right was violated or simply canceled, because the entire corps of Russian law was canceled by the Bolsheviks at the end of the 17th year, this is an absolute moral necessity, and by the way, to one degree or another, as a rule, the ways went to the countries of the post-compliance eastern Europe, which announced the return to the pre-communist law, to the pre-commentical state All that was violated by the communist law. But not in any country of Eastern Europe there was neither such total violating, nor such a total destruction of carriers of law as it was in Russia. And therefore, it is all the more that we need to carry out this return, but nevertheless, as they sometimes believe.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Andrey Borisovich. To carry out this return in really speaking, this will mean to carry out a refund of pre -revolutionary property to the heirs of those from whom these property were taken away. In Eastern Europe, in many cases, the owners who were robbed have been preserved. Igor Borisovich Chubais, I said that you have a speaking name, as if your book of the latter, which lies in front of me - “Russia in search of oneself”, I must say that in the 96-97th, two editions of your previous book “From the Russian idea to the idea of a new Russia” were published in Moscow. So, Andrei Borisovich says in particular, about the idea of succession, but this seems to be only part of your idea, your concept of new Russia.

Igor Chubais:

If you still talk about the problem of succession, I would like to say this: you began, quoting the constitution, saying that we have a rule of law, but it is difficult to agree with this. After all, Lenin was the creator of the Soviet state, as generally recognized, and therefore the destroyer of the Russian state. And after the 17th year, legitimacy, the right was never recreated - the Russian Soviet leaders themselves are talking about this. Even during the perestroika period, Gorbachev set a goal to build, to come to a legal state. That is, he admitted that we did not have 70 years of legal state. More recently, say, I will be reflected in the article by the chairman of the rehabilitation commission for President Yakovlev, on January 16, in the newspaper Izvestia, his interview was published in which he calls our state criminal. So there is no legal state, there is no legitimacy. And the question arises: how to come to a legal state, how to get it? We can say that all 70 years, 80 years after October history, this was an attempt to create a new legitimacy, new legality, but nothing came of this. Khrushchev accused Stalin of repressions and said that now there would be a “thaw”, now there will be a normal state. Then Brezhnev accused Khrushchev of voluntarism and said that now there would be a normal Lenin course, a normal state. Then Gorbachev spoke of perestroika and so on, and so on. The problem has not yet been resolved. It is no accident that our state is not only the most repressive, the largest number of repressed, but also the largest number of rehabilitated. We can constantly punish, rehabilitate, and again punish us for the same thing, and so on. And actually, when people go out with the portraits of Stalin on the street, they are looking for order, they are looking for laws, they are looking for legality. So the only real exit that exists, which exists from scratch and again, never succeeded in, and never succeeded, the only way to return to law and right is to connect is a self -binding is to return to the legitimate state that has existed in Russia for more than a thousand years, it is to return to historical Russia, and to enter its laws, its norms, the rules to this day. I just don’t see another way.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Igor Borisovich. However, in my defense, rather in clarification, I did not say a word that Russia is a legal state, I said literally the following: the Constitution of the 93rd year defines Russia as a legal state. But, what is the essence of your concept of the new Russia?

Igor Chubais:

In short, Russia has lost its identity, the communist ideology collapsed, the communist system collapsed. A new state arises - the new Russia. This new Russia, generally speaking, has 4 development options, 4 options for what way it will be. Well, one option is if the new Russia is simply improved, fixed, detected by the Soviet system. Of course this is a dead end, although Zyuganov and a number of other leaders of the Communist Party protrude for this. There is another option - let's generally throw our entire story, it is vicious, it is tragic, let's start with scratch and let's copy the Western experience. Well, some of these orthodox democratic leaders essentially act on this. This path is extremely unreasonable, because Russia has a huge historical experience, huge historical capital. Then there is another opportunity - Russia can overcome the “red” foundation, we have destroyed the “iron curtain”, we are connected with the whole world, but we are divorced from our own history, we are divorced from our own roots. And the third option is to overcome the "red" foundation, self -enforce, return to your logic of development. In fact, the fourth path is now being implemented, and the government, in essence, uses all three points and mixes them. Because when the country of Andrei the First-Called is restored in the country, the 80th anniversary of the Komsomol is simultaneously celebrated, the official burial of the remains of Nikolai II occurred at the same time, plus the mausoleum and so on, and so on, this is such a political, to put it mildly, vinaigrette, which simply does not give anything. Therefore, one of the ways must be selected, and this path is to return to your own basis, to its own millennial roots and continue it. This is the restoration of Russian identity.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Igor Borisovich. Vladimir Evgenievich, the creation of the concept of the new Russia, if philosophy, history, theory is isolated from this, to some extent, probably, the pathetic, is still the idea of Andrei Borisovich Zubov - the restoration of the legal foundation of Russia, how real it is?

Vladimir Guliev:

My respected interlocutors raised a number of questions, I will try only to comment on some of them, setting out my position in parallel. There is a lot of truth, a lot of truth in sentences and assumptions both Professor Zubov and Professor Chubais, but I would not, nevertheless, agreed. From the point of view of the historical, political, historical and legal, of course, the idea of continuity, it is not only an idea, it is realized. But, it seems to me that in any case, we were able to mainly discard the Marxist-Leninist concept of the change of the so-called historical types of state, when, as a result of the social and political revolution, revolutionary violence, the former state is destroyed, and a completely new statehood is created, a completely new political legal system has nothing to do with the previous one. From this point of view, both the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks and the events of the summer of the 91st year meant the creation of a new state on the ruins of the former. I do not share this position, I think that the ideas of the continuity of statehood and the public law, civil, civil community of people, it permeates, indeed, the whole history of Russia, the continuity of culture and a number of institutions. And therefore, it is no coincidence that the current constitution in the preamble says about the preservation of historically established state unity and revival, on the other hand, the sovereign statehood of Russia, obviously, unlike the USSR and the RSFSR as part of the latter. On the other hand, it is fully accepting Professor Zubov to fully, instead of the current and especially Soviet legislation, the entire legal framework, say, the Russian Empire, is not so simple. Firstly, we are faced with the question of what to restore? Let's say a set of laws of the Russian Empire, or that legal system that began to form as mainly democratic after the overthrow of the monarchy. In both cases, we meet with difficulties, especially in part of the property, because, well, imagine, civil property rights are being revived that existed until February 17, inclusive, and these property rights are transferred to the heirs of those previous owners. Who should the gigantic property of the imperial family and personally monarch Nicholas the second? It was the richest person not only in Europe, but also the world, and the imperial family was a richest, conditionally, family corporation at that time. So, all the property, giant land plots, bowels, mines, much more should now be transferred to the heirs of the imperial family, living abroad - this is not easy, right? This will be the removal of state, private, corporate property of the currently existing huge property allotment. From the point of view of the political, to restore, say, a set of laws of the Russian Empire does not seem possible in the near and foreseeable perspective because there is a republic in Russia, a good, bad, not without flaws, of course, but there is a republic. So we can only talk about the restoration of the republican structure of Russia from March to October 17. As you can see, all this is not so easy to solve. Finally, there is another legal issue - Russia, having acquired sovereignty and having left the collapsed Soviet Union, it proclaimed herself, and this was recognized as international lawyers, world diplomacy, and not the successor of the USSR, the new Russia proclaimed, but a successor. There are significant differences here: the successors of the USSR regarding some powers have become a number of republics of the USSR, which are now in the CIS, except for Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, they all had to re -join the United Nations. The concept of the successor allowed Russia to remain both a member of the UN and a regular member of the Security Council, like Ukraine and Belarus, respectively, remain a member of the United Nations. You see, there are such difficulties.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Vladimir Evgenievich. Naturally, there are these difficulties, and they, as far as I know about the works, Andrei Borisovich Zubov, he takes into account.

Andrey Zubov:

Of course, that Vladimir Evgenievich said a lot of truth - there are immensely many difficulties. But difficulties should not stop us, but should simply make us work more and think more deeply how to solve them. We cannot close our eyes - and this is the most important thing, on the very fact of what happened in the 17th year. Because, I am deeply sure, what foundation we will build new Russia on, this Russia will be. If this is the foundation of capture and violence - and the new Russia will be a country of capture and violence. If this is the foundation of law, and the new Russia will be the state of law. And our right was already violated in February 17, and, by the way, not the temporary government, but by Emperor Nicholas the Second, who violated his own oath when climbing the throne, having made an incorrect renunciation, because, perhaps, it was precisely this that he opened the possibility for the future legal, precisely the legal death of Russia. The Provisional Government only agreed to this change in law, agreed to this legal mistake. As for October, everything is already clear here, Lenin himself said that "his power is not based on any right, only on one violence based on power" - I quote his own work. And thus, when we call our country the successor of the USSR, we are thereby continuers of robbers and rapists and here you can’t get anywhere. Dear colleague Vladimir Evgenievich Guliyev said that Russia is a republic, but if we forget for a minute about the Constitution of the 93rd year, I will ask the question: why did Russia be a republic before, on what basis did Russia become a republic in the 17th year? Was it a legal, legal act? Was it an act adopted by some authorized people? No, on the first of March 17, the Avksentieva pre-Parliament, not chosen by anyone, did not proclaim Russia a republic by anyone, and everyone in Russia knew that this was a lawless effect. And there were simply no other proclamations except the Bolshevik declarations. Russia is considered a federation, but who has declared a unitary state a federation? Bolsheviks. Declared in an absolutely illegal way. Perhaps Russia must be a republic, perhaps Russia must be a federation, but it should be acts of legal authority, acts thought out, until these acts Russia cannot be considered either a republic or a federation in a formal legal sense. And now I would like to pay attention to the Constitution of the 93rd year: opponents of the Constitution of the 93rd year, as a rule, indicate that it was incorrectly adopted, that there was no 50% when voting, but the question is not at all. Even if there were more than 50% for the Constitution on December 12, 93rd, because the most important thing is that the question of the referendum itself, the question itself, brought to the name of the famous decree of 1400 of September 21, 93rd, implied not to restore the legal unity of Russia with pre-revolutionary Russia, but suggested only phased reform in the Russian Federation. That is, this decree and a referendum did not make alternatives between pre-revolutionary Russia and, say, the project of the Constitution of the 93rd year, but only continued the development of Russian Russia, democratizing it, improving it, reforming it, which is explicitly stated in decree 1400. Thus, our citizens could not make the right choice in the 93rd year, no one explained to them in what legal situation they were, they were forgotten, they forgot, they forgot. that they are in the state of the capture, in the territory that was Russia, which was later captured. Indeed, it was no accident that in Russian emigration until the 50-60s, we used, say, the old font and old spelling, because simply a new font and new spelling were introduced by illegal power, this not only means that it should not be, but everything should be legally and legally consciously.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Andrey Borisovich. But exactly the same fact is that emigration, in the end, switched to a new spelling. We will assume that this program is the beginning of the cycle, which will serve as a reason for thought.