A referendum by the WTO will not pass!

There will be no referendum on the WTO - the CEC did not allow. Not surprising: there have been no referendums in Russia for 20 years. The authorities are inconvenient to bring their initiatives to the court, because then the risk of failure is great. The same with the elections and with other mechanisms of “feedback” - our popular government is afraid of the voice of the people.

Russia is actively advancing to the entry into the WTO and no opposition to this apparently will interfere, since the state authorities clearly aimed at this introduction. The Central Election Commission, for example, reset the chances of holding a referendum, which the initiative group of citizens insisted on. According to RIA Novosti, the CEC considered that the referendum on this issue would contradict the federal constitutional law “On a referendum”.

It is difficult to say how fair it is. The law transfers an exhaustive list of those for those by which a referendum cannot be held and seen among them the entry into the WTO is quite difficult. Unless the CEC considered one of the subparagraphs of the 6th article of this FKZ (the referendum cannot be submitted to the election “On the election, on early termination, suspension or extension of the term of powers of bodies formed in accordance with the international treaty of the Russian Federation, or officials elected or appointed in accordance with the international treaty of the Russian Federation, as well as to create such bodies or the appointment of such persons. Unless otherwise provided by the international treaty of the Russian Federation ”), but this seems to be a strongly expanding interpretation. And on other issues, a referendum may well be carried out, although the procedure is quite difficult.

It would seem: the entry of Russia into the WTO applies to all citizens of Russia, so why not to conduct a wide public discussion on this occasion, to develop a certain national consensus and even probably put this issue for a direct vote? It concerns, at the same time, to a greater extent than any extension of the term of office of the State Duma. However, they do not like referenda from us.

In general, in Putin’s political reality, the referendum has long become a typical sleeping measure. It is at the local level, but on the federal he has never been carried out during the entire reign of Putin. And in general, the last time the popular approval was required only when the constitution was adopted in 1993.

That is, for almost 20 years no national referenda has been held in the country.

This is not to say that citizens or some political representatives be fought greatly for the right to conduct referenda. Only the Communists, according to the old memory, are trying to initiate a referendum, then they arrange their own “folk referendum”, which, however, is poorly distinguished from the political technological fake, which is essentially. And so, even the idea of ​​a referendum does not cause any excitement.

The sympathies of the Communists and antipathy of power in relation to direct popular will on a specific issue are clear. The authorities understand well that the wide support that manages to achieve the last federal campaigns on the several of the last is rather fragile and even ephemeral. And if Putin is personally popular, which popularity can even be carried out in the decent result of the “party in power”, then this popularity does not guarantee support for specific initiatives of the authorities. And the public compromise or there the “contract” works until the power does not cross some vaguely understandable both to her and citizens.

Therefore, holding a referendum on a specific issue is always a risk and easier to make a decision of the backstage.

Also not a guarantee of success - the monetization of benefits can be an example - but how much chance would be the monetization, put the authorities the question of universal voting? Something suggests that there was no chance at all, because here we are not talking about abstractions like “democracy” or “parliament”, but about specific income of specific people.

In this sense, in this sense, prospects are hardly much better, because the advantages from joining the organization of the authorities must be proved, but there are many shortcomings, long and in detail have been described in detail by opponents of the authorities.

Power is in the eternal position of the “only European” and, even more entertaining, it represents this that. She has such a self -awareness.

Where else is the desire to do better for everyone, or at least for many, but so that everyone about it does not recognize anything specific (better - nothing at all) and could not interfere with this. When representatives of propaganda once again start the old song about the opposition “Liberals do not like the people”, they, of course, are cunning. The authorities also believes that she was unlucky with the people, is simply neatly silent on this topic.

The authorities need a controlled parliament to conduct de facto right-with numerous reservations-economic policy. Under these conditions, free elections are strongly interfered, according to the results of which a stable parliamentary majority does not emerge in any way. Therefore, the elections are furnished so that, with the external visibility of democratic procedures, the parliament remains loyal or frankly controlled by the government. Who cares about the voice of the people? He rather interferes, this voice.

Therefore, a referendum as a mechanism for obtaining feedback from power is not used. And any other forms of popular will, up to recent “public discussions” of laws on the police and education on the Internet, the authorities are trying to “tame”, by complete or partial imitation.

The problem, of course, is in the absence of a language for communication between power and the population. The population has a kind of principle of “presumption of guilt of power” (all that officials conceived is probably not for the better). The authorities are not able to convey any more or less complicated thought to the population and seeks without the extreme need not to do this at all, limited to an clumsy propaganda and other manipulative mechanisms. It must be assumed that in such conditions a referendum as a framework for communication, there are no chances.