The lively discussion of recent days regarding changes in the presidential administration and their global consequences for the future of the country is extremely symptomatic. Analysts are guessing: the victory of which of the near-Kremlin clans is the appointment ...

ABOUT

the lively discussion of recent days regarding changes in the presidential administration and their global consequences for the future of the country is extremely symptomatic.

Analysts are guessing: the victory of which of the near-Kremlin clans is the appointment of Dmitry Medvedev as head of the presidential administration? How much stronger will Dmitry Kozak be? Will Vladislav Surkov retain his influence? How will Igor Sechin and Viktor Ivanov behave?

In the meantime, something else should be discussed!

After all, we are talking about people holding leadership positions in a strange body, regarding which the Constitution says only that it is formed by the president. And nothing more...

P

the powers of the presidential administration, which in fact is nothing more than the personal office of the head of state, are not defined by any law, no one except its own employees is obliged to obey its decisions, it has no right to control anything in the country and nothing from anyone may require.

In the regulation on the AP, approved by presidential decree, it is assigned exclusively auxiliary functions.

Theoretically, none of the citizens of the country should be at all interested in who is in charge of this office, who are his deputies, and what deep political meaning lies in this or that office appointment. Because the presidential administration should not have any legal influence on what is happening in the country.

But this is in theory. But in practice, everything is different.

Everyone knows that the AP is a body endowed with enormous de facto power, although it is completely deprived of it de jure.

The body that commands everything, but is not responsible for anything.

A body that has rights but no obligations to society.

The body, according to its real status, is much higher than the government (not to mention the parliament).

A body whose leaders are appointed behind the scenes, according to publicly unannounced criteria, but at the same time are considered the most influential people in the country and consistently occupy leading positions in the ratings.

We already had such a body, combining colossal power and complete irresponsibility. Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

None of the Soviet laws could read a single line stating that the decisions of this body are binding on the citizens of the Soviet Union. But everyone knew that the Politburo is the highest authority in the country, and not the Supreme Council and the Council of Ministers prescribed in the Constitution. And everyone knew that a member of the Politburo was much "cooler" than a minister, not to mention the deputies of the Supreme Council. In the same way, today everyone knows that the head of the Presidential Administration is much “cooler” than a member of the government, not to mention State Duma deputies.

Meanwhile, the government is endowed not only with constitutional power, but also with constitutional responsibility. Not only rights, but also responsibilities. Ministers can be summoned to parliament, ministers can be asked to write a deputy, ministers can be expressed no confidence, and finally, the government can be dismissed. These are measures natural for a democratic state, allowing the legislature to control the executive. But in relation to the Presidential Administration, which is actually endowed with much more power than the government, all these measures are impossible precisely because it lacks legal powers ...

Meanwhile, the existence and position of this "semi-constitutional" body is taken for granted by both the political elite and the citizens, and does not cause them - with rare exceptions - not the slightest protest. And thus it convincingly proves that the current Russian state can by no means be called democratic.

It is in a democratic state that they are discussing reshuffles in the government, and in an authoritarian state they are discussing reshuffles in the presidential office. In a democratic state it is important who is in the cabinet of ministers, but in an authoritarian state it is important who is in the president's office. In a democratic state, public authorities responsible to society rule, and in an authoritarian state, the presidential apparatus is not controlled by society and is not responsible to it. In a democratic state, the system of "checks and balances" is implemented by separating the legislative and executive powers; in an authoritarian state, this system is implemented by appointing representatives of warring political clans to the presidential administration...

The fact that today Dmitry Medvedev and Dmitry Kozak, people with a reputation for high-class lawyers, are placed at the head of this legally dubious body, only exacerbates the situation.