: Returned to the carpet

The reprimand of the employee of the Investigative Committee, who reported the call for the interrogation of the son of the Prosecutor General, is a symptomatic story. Since it shows that the anti -corruption and other liberal rhetoric of the authorities does not lead to a change in politics. Clans conflicts are resolved in the old way.

On April 4, the Investigative Committee reprimanded an employee of the press service, who, without the permission of the leadership, told reporters about plans to interrogate the son of the Prosecutor General Artem Chaika as part of the case of the illegal gambling business in the Moscow Region. “The senior assistant to the head of the Main Investigative Department of the IC in the Moscow Region, Irina Gumennaya, without agreeing with her leadership, answered reporters with the question about the investigation of the said criminal case,” the SK said in a statement.

The reprimand of the employee of the Moscow Region Investigative Committee, who confirmed the information about the call for the interrogation of the son of the Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika in the case of illegal casinos, is a symptomatic story for several reasons at once.

The first and most obvious: this is a direct consequence of the conciliatory meeting of the Prosecutor General and the head of the Investigative Committee of President Medvedev (see Close the casino of war ). Despite the fact that no details of the meeting were reported, but there were only speculations in individual departments, it is obvious that there was a formula for reconciliation. The public dispute was ordered to stop and not to splash out anymore. In order not to drop the honor of the uniform and dangerous not to overtake the confrontations. To this end, a ritual victim was made - it was decided to appoint the senior assistant to the head of the Main Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee for the Moscow Region Irina Gumennaya.

It turned out that the investigators did not hear the previous order of Dmitry Medvedev, which could not be disclosed before the court. Now they tried to rehabilitate themselves. This is generally the usual practice of “punishment of innocent” and the search for extreme in high -profile scandals.

It is another matter that history leaves an extremely unpleasant impression: it reserves all sorts of statements of the supreme power about the strengthening of transparency and the fight against corruption.

Indeed, from high stands, words are pronounced about the need to punish corrupt officials, regardless of ranks and ranks. Dmitry Medvedev tirelessly repeats the idea that any abuse described in the media or even blogs should become the subject of verification of the prosecutor's office. But in fact, it turns out that a serious conflict, fraught with a change in the allegiance of the forces in the elites, is no longer a corruption business and the appearance of a senior official in such a case is a fact that should not know the general public.

In this sense, the desire of the authorities to develop certain uniform standards of reporting before the population, and the very principle of strengthening transparency, is called into question.

For what is the principle if the degree and the world is revealed to the refusal of it at the first clash of departmental interests and power clans.

The reasoning that it is necessary to get used to transparency gradually and any measures should be taken sequentially in order to prevent the final and irrevocable promotion of the nuts of power, in this case, they do not satisfy any taste. Since the clear selectivity of the process, in other cases, is proved by “double standards”. The principle by which no one - neither power, nor business, nor citizens live, can hardly be considered real.

How is the political technological deception possible, Medvedev rhetoric will work: who remembers the day before yesterday and reads newspapers? However, it is more difficult to believe in the reformist potential that anti -corruption, and other liberal speech.

The growth of dissatisfaction with the broad masses, which is fixed by sociologists (see Putin's minimum ), of course, is unlikely to be associated with unjustified expectations from the widely announced Medvedev thaw and any prosecutor's showdown. And it is unlikely to lead to the failure of pro -government parties in the elections or the refusal of levers of the manual control system in the foreseeable perspective. However, the demonstrative reluctance of the authorities (in the broad sense of the word) to follow their own rhetoric certainly does not add authority to it.

In the sense of relevant political, everything that is happening is completely described as the victory of President Medvedev, who managed to reconcile the security forces and not lose the controllability of the law enforcement agencies. Now the "bulldogs" returned to the carpet again. In the space, more long -term such victories should be avoided.