July 26, 2010, 09:40 Politics

“We do not intend to slap anyone on the wrist for taking initiatives”

Interview with the Presidential Envoy to Parliament

Olga Bolotova Why the draft resolution on amnesty for 300 thousand people failed, how many deputies began to attend meetings after criticizing the president, and what equipment will monitor parliamentarians after the summer holidays, Garry Minkh, the presidential envoy to the State Duma, said in an interview with Gazeta.Ru.

— How would you evaluate the results of the session? To what extent did the deputies cope with the instructions that the president gave to parliament in his message?

— 49 presidential bills were introduced. The president introduced a large number of initiatives, including to implement the ideas that were in his message to parliament, so I assess the results of the session as very fruitful.

--But deputies worked especially actively with some presidential initiatives. For example, amendments were made to the presidential package on law enforcement reform...

— There is a simplified and exaggerated assessment of how work is going on with presidential initiatives - supposedly “don’t touch them with your hands.”

In this sense, there is no particular specificity.

Naturally, as the presidential envoy on these projects, I coordinate the work of deputies, presidential and government structures, but

In no case would I characterize my role as the role of a dog in a manger: driving everyone away, putting on a scary face and showing my teeth.

We are trying to ensure that the bill remains conceptually unchanged. As for the textual revision and final polishing of the project, this is certainly happening, so we cannot assume that presidential initiatives are a sacred cow and some kind of Cerberus Minkh is walking around and trying to intimidate everyone who moves.

According to the package of bills on the reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, there was a proposal that the stricter requirements for employees of internal affairs bodies provided for in them should be extended to all law enforcement agencies. But we did not agree, because conceptually this would go beyond the logic of these projects.

— To prepare initiatives from the last presidential address to parliament, a working group was created to improve the electoral legislation. It was assumed that after all the bills were introduced, the working group participants would continue their work and discuss the parties’ proposals. What is this group doing now? Can we expect any more projects from her?

— The working group was immediately conceived and planned as a permanent mechanism. This working group was supposed, on the one hand, to be a permanent think tank formed with the participation of representatives of all registered political parties, and on the other hand, to ensure consensus on the content of all election bills, which only then became presidential initiatives. We really managed to do this.

The second task was solved almost 100%, although this was not easy to do due to different assessments of the political situation and how the election campaigns took place at various levels.

The last problem, concerning the possibility of extending the proportional electoral system to the municipal level, has not yet been fully resolved. Addressing the message, the President said that this issue needs to be discussed further and then he will make a decision. Now the analysis and discussion within the working group have taken place, a proposal has been developed, and we will wait for a decision.

The first task is also not removed from the agenda. Now, even if the president does not formulate any additional tasks on the problems of election legislation, the working group will continue to analyze the election legislation and law enforcement practice and discuss the proposals of various participants in the election process.

— A bill tightening the rules for the use of absentee ballots was also prepared at the working group, but then the opposition complained that the desire to reduce the use of absentee ballots was never taken into account... Many believe that the main falsifications occur with the help of absentee ballots.

— Absentee ballots as a phenomenon must be preserved.

The bill, which was adopted in the first reading, was conceptually supported by all factions. Those political parties that are not represented in parliament, but also participated in the working group, also agreed that absentee ballots are needed.

It is necessary to ensure protection against abuse when using them, and this is precisely the task that we will solve in the bill: proposals for the procedure for production, issuance, and control over their use should create sufficient guarantees against abuse.

Abuses, of course, were, are and will be, but this will be more of an excess. At the federal level, the risks are minimal: it is impossible to abuse it too much, because the votes still go into the same piggy bank of the party or presidential candidate. There is no point in gathering large numbers of people from other constituencies to vote in any particular constituency. This can work in a majoritarian system, but we are increasingly using a proportional system, which also works to minimize negative consequences.

When votes are being counted as a whole in the Russian Federation or in a constituent entity of the federation, absentee ballots objectively cannot work to distort the will of voters. But we want to minimize the risks during majoritarian elections through the proposed changes.

— When the president introduced his package of laws to humanize criminal legislation, deputies from United Russia withdrew their bills, the meaning of which indirectly intersected with what the president had. How does the administration view the activities of parliamentarians aimed at making further changes in this area?

— The logic for further improvement of criminal legislation and its mitigation has been expressed by the president more than once and is shared by all of us. But there are a number of criminal offenses for which we, on the contrary, propose tougher penalties. For example, in the autumn session of 2009, punishment for crimes against minors was tightened: sentences were significantly increased and the possibility of parole for those convicted of these crimes was reduced.

Among the last three presidential initiatives submitted to the Duma during this session was a project providing for tougher punishment for terrorist crimes. The same applies to the fight against corruption. I think we will look for a reasonable combination so that, on the one hand, we do not deprive people of liberty for minor corruption crimes, and on the other, in order to tighten liability, including by multiplying the size of penalties.

Deputies withdrew their initiatives because they were alternative bills. In terms of the degree of liberality, their initiatives were much broader, but, in our opinion, they were redundant. And they understand this too, it seems to me. Having seen a more correctly developed, thoughtful and clearly formulated initiative of the president, the deputies, in my opinion, considered the task they set when introducing the project to be realized.

In principle, as regards the legislative initiatives of deputies, we, naturally, do not intend to limit their creativity. Firstly, this is the constitutional right of a parliamentarian, and secondly, this is a slightly different view, maybe not always canonical, but at least non-trivial, on the problems that we are trying to solve. Even if this is some kind of anticipation or an excessive, from our point of view, proposal, which is still difficult to implement, it is nevertheless, as a rule, useful. We do not intend to slap anyone on the wrist for taking initiatives.

— And they weren’t beaten for the amnesty (in March, about 40 United Russia deputies submitted to the Duma a draft resolution on an amnesty for the 65th anniversary of the Victory with a proposal to amnesty over three hundred thousand people - Gazeta.Ru)?

- No. It’s just that the approach from the head of state was tougher. The amnesty, in our opinion, should have been targeted and applied only to those who had a real connection to the victory in the Great Patriotic War.

— Why were these issues not resolved at the preliminary stage, before the draft resolution was introduced?

“I think this is connected with the very logic of political life in parliament. Various draft resolutions on a very broad amnesty were introduced by deputies from different factions almost simultaneously. This was due to a certain chain reaction of political parties to the initiatives of opponents. In addition, May 9 was approaching, and, naturally, certain actions were needed on the part of the State Duma by this date , since the decision on amnesty is the exclusive competence of the Duma. The deputies tried to express their opinion in this way, but we had a conceptually different proposal, based on an analysis of the number of convicted people actually connected with the Victory.

— That is, the Chairman of the Committee on Civil, Criminal and Arbitration Legislation Pavel Krasheninnikov , whose version of the amnesty was ultimately adopted, nevertheless introduced his own project at the request of the Kremlin? Have you discussed with him?

- Yes, we talked about it. They drew attention to the fact that the very wide circle of people to whom the deputies proposed to extend the amnesty, in principle, has nothing to do with the war, therefore, proposing to grant them an amnesty by May 9 is incorrect, primarily in relation to front-line soldiers.

There may be some other dates that are more suitable for different social groups of convicts, but this is a different approach, a different concept.

— After the president criticized deputies for attending plenary sessions, the State Duma adopted amendments to the law “On the Status...” and the regulations. Don't you think that the adopted amendments turned out to be too lenient?

- Don't know. The law has not yet entered into force; amendments to the regulations will also begin to apply only in the autumn session. But, despite this, discipline has improved significantly, so even in the absence of legislative changes there is an opportunity to correct the situation within the framework of the available levers in the State Duma and in the factions.

I never count deputies by heads, but, in my estimation, at the very beginning of this spring session there were, as a rule, 20-25% of the total number in the hall, and now I see that at least half of the hall is filled, and until the end of the plenary meetings

For example, at our last meetings we worked late, until 20–21 o’clock, but there were still more people in the hall than in the morning at the beginning of this spring session. Once the amendments come into force, the situation should improve even further.

--Will anyone be watching?

— The word “follow” is not entirely correct. Roll calls, of course, are not made, but on the days of plenary sessions, deputies are registered using cards. The changes that have now been made to the regulations tighten the requirements for registration, and, if possible, to leave somewhere on the days of plenary sessions, and if possible, use the mechanism of powers of attorney. Therefore, I think that the demand from deputies for work on the days of plenary sessions will be stricter. But at least we don’t plan to count heads.

— Do factions keep attendance statistics?

- Certainly. This is absolutely done through a factional mechanism, it is clear.

Deputies - faction coordinators - periodically pass in front of me and ask on their mobile phones: “Where are you? You should be in the hall." Therefore, each faction, even the largest, clearly understands who is in their hall, who is on a business trip, who is sick or absent for some other reason.

As for external control, we need to think about it. It is impossible for tasks like “monitoring” and “controlling” to be assigned, in particular to the State Duma apparatus. Because there is the status of a deputy, and there is the status of a civil servant - an official who performs the function of an employee of the structure that ensures the activities of parliament. It is not entirely correct to assign such functions to the device. Here it is possible to use some technical tools that record the presence or absence of a deputy.

— That is, an electronic fixation system may appear?

- Maybe... But this thing, on the one hand, is expensive, and on the other hand, perhaps irrational. It may turn out that there will be double electronic accounting: at the entrance to the hall and registration in the hall. There will be a discrepancy in the numbers even without malicious intent: for example, a deputy will pass by and not register - there will be statistics at the entrance to the hall (relatively) 400 people, but 410 will be registered.

- How do you mean “by”?

— Even in the subway, people manage to get through the turnstile from below, from the side, and from above.

If we talk about the essence, these are parliamentarians elected by the people. Therefore, the very approach that someone external (other than voters) acts as a shepherd and drives them all in is not entirely correct. The role of parliament and parliamentarians does not allow for simplistic or pejorative formulation and construction of approaches to solving this problem. It is necessary to ensure clearer self-organization; we must drive ourselves, which, in principle, has already been partially achieved.

The second side is why to drive it. To show voters a good picture or to ensure real expression of will? Here you need to understand exactly what the goal is and what means are adequate to achieve this goal. The position on most politically sensitive issues is discussed in the faction, and the faction makes a decision: “We vote consolidated for/against.”

And if a faction actually makes such a decision, this means that 100% of the votes of deputies of one or another faction are put consolidated on one scale.

— But consolidated voting cannot be canceled?

— Nobody prohibits a deputy from voting differently, and no legal sanctions are provided for this. This is a matter of his own assessment. But after several votes against the wishes of the party, he could create problems for himself in the next election period.

If a deputy has repeatedly acted against the party line on the most important political bills, the likelihood that he will be included in the lists of this party in the next elections is almost zero.

— Do you have attendance statistics kept by factions?

— All factions, without exception, share information about attendance with us.

And I am in the hall almost all the time and can independently assess the real situation. Even if someone from any faction says that there are so many deputies from our faction here and now, and there are so many of you here, I see that this is not always the case.

There is such a stereotyped thesis on the part of the opposition parties that there are a lot of United Russia members, so there are relatively fewer of them in the room. Actually this is not true. You look and see that sometimes some faction that is not the largest has a significantly lower percentage of representation. But it is possible that five people from some small faction left the hall at that moment for a couple of minutes. And five people in a small faction is already noticeable.