Translated material
Political counter -reform of Putin
The bill on NPO- “foreign agents” and the return of an article for slander are events from one row. The authorities are hit in the “swamp protest” and those who sympathized with him. In addition, Putin de facto carries out a counter-reform, destroying the little that Dmitry Medvedev managed to stand.
The dispute about the “twisting of the nuts” under Vladimir Putin seems to be safely ended. The regime, of course, is far from so “blood”, as his critics believe, but he will no longer give him to relax and rest on his laurels to all sorts of “swamp Protestants”. At least they will make their life more restless.
Today, the State Duma considers two “political” ones at once - both are quite in the trend of “twisting of the nuts” - a bill in the second, main reading: amendments to the law on non -profit organizations and the return to the Criminal Code of the article “Cleveta”. Miracles, sometimes, happen, but the Duma must approve the bills (perhaps you already know what you approved) and, quite possibly, will immediately approve them in the third reading. Then, already on the last meeting of the Federation Council on July 18, the laws will be adopted and can soon come into effect.
The president has already said his word, offering mitigating amendments. There are no special doubts that the deputies will take into account these amendments. According to them, from under the action of the repressive law on NGOs, Putin proposed to remove all organizations that “affect state decisions”, but they are engaged in some non-political activity-from philanthropists to environmentalists. However, as if the “political” NGOs (the same association “Voice”), this, apparently, will not help.
In terms of the return of the article for slander, the presidential relief is also ritual - they will not plant for slander, but the fines will still increase radically. Considering that the same scheme (tough option, then softening) was with the law on fines for violations at rallies, the authorities are configured and to carry out these laws. Student style, at least exactly the same.
Fines for violations on protest promotions differ in the sense that they beat the interests of a rather wide and at the same time not quite specific group of people. New bills are being stunned with social activists and journalists criticizing power. They have already been talked about social activists (see the State Department of the Dream), about journalists are also clear.
Prior to its cancellation, the article “slander” was used mainly by regional authorities against criticism journalists and bloggers. It must be assumed that practice and after its restoration will be the same. The innovation is only that if the authorities preferred to give time to critics, now they will be fined. He wrote that the vice-governor N is a thief and surrounded himself with the subhalimes, and instead of checking the prosecutor's office of the vice-governor’s activities, a lawsuit and a fine (this is our court), say, two hundred thousand rubles.
Both human rights activists and journalists understand this well and try to complain, ask the authorities to cancel bad laws - in general, how they can resist. There will be a little sense, as he had not been from the same criticism from the same journalists and human rights activists to the law on rallies. Then the head of the Union of Journalists publicly suddenly supported the idea of returning an article for slander. The SDR, of course, the structure of the fake and the journalistic community is weak, but gives the authorities a great occasion to say: “How is it so“ you are against ”? Here is the SHR - for. " And something like "with whom to negotiate."
All three political bills on “twisting of nuts” (plus amendments to the law on information technology - see children's Internet expectations ) have a political and symbolic meaning.
It will always be possible to “press” objectionable people through the court and law enforcement officers in order to prevent the “new swamp”. Or rather, do not even “press”, but to scare in advance “legal consequences”.
During his first period, Putin actively stomped Yeltsin establishments, Yeltsin on the stone did not leave a stone from the Gorbachev era and, probably, can continue to continue, up to imperial Russia.
In this sense, Medvedev suffered a real failure. Putin Prime Minister and Putin’s shots around did not leave him a chance. He stuttered about the state corporations - they essentially live and hello. The public sector was going to reduce - well, let's see what Igor Sechin thinks about this. “United Russia” criticized - it, of course, is not in the best form, but it quite exists, and even with the critic itself at the head. The elections of governors returned in such a castrated form that it is difficult to pass this for Medvedev’s victory. Yes, and did not want to return these unnecessary and harmful authorities for his actual authorities, what is it already there.
If there is no heritage, it would seem, to trample? But the Putin team found some residual presence of Medvedev’s activities as the head of state. The liberalization of the Law on NPOs, the abolition of an article for slander (and we will see, by the way, what will happen next with all this humanization of the Criminal Code), flirting with the “creative class”, games in “Free Internet”.
What remains untouched there (for now)? Skolkovo, unusual, unfulfilled modernization and prohibited table lamps? Well, to a heap, the translation of the shooter, which for some reason canceled the funny ex-president. Although the return of the shooter Putin was already aimed at the return of the translation. And it seems that the norm “0.3 ppm” for drivers also threatened with Medvedev also threatened.
However, what else should it be expected? “Dmitry Anatolyevich made these decisions on liberalization, as you said, public life, including in the field of criminal prosecution and criminal proceedings. Together we will see how it will work, ” - so Putin reacted to the question of Vladimir Kulistikov about whether he would continue Medvedev’s course in liberalization.
Reform, the counter -reform is not now - not now, and not our scheme has been invented. Yes, the reforms were very frail and it is difficult to discern them without a microscope. Yes, the counter -reform is larger, and in the light of what has happened since December on the capital's streets is so much larger. However, it is small. Here are the election of governors to cancel - with the consent of the governors themselves - the oligarchs to “be equivalent”, these were political counter -reforms, real! Well, now: what are the results of the previous reign, such and counter -reforms.