The mercy of Putin

Fans of Pussy Riot should not be violently rejoice at what Putin has stood up for the girls. For the first -person reaction is far from always literally perceived by persons lower. Such a “vertical of power” in Russia - powers are blurred, decision -making centers are numerous. And the Prosecutor General and the court are independent.

Of course, without the opinion of the first person, the star is not burning so brightly and not a single issue is resolved. Vladimir Putin on the eve spoke out in the Pussy Riot case and, as it seemed to many, spoke out sympathetically. Namely: he said that Pussy acts so in Israel or in the Caucasus, the authorities would not have time to save them from indignant fellow citizens, but they should not be very strictly judged.

One of the lawyers “Punk-Feminists” has already called Putin’s statement “indigenous turning point” in the case, but it seems that he is not quite right. Of course, when the “Sun of Russian Policy” draws attention to a particular problem, his words are interpreted by many as a guide to action. But far from always and far from literally. AK words about the need for fully honest and transparent elections are unlikely to guarantee a transition to democratic procedures. Or the words about the "independence" of the Prosecutor General helped a very specific Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So to talk about a “indigenous fracture” would be a hasty decision.

In the statement, the proprietary intonation of Vladimir Vladimirovich-condescending irony, patting on the shoulder of those who simply did not understand what blessed to the girls fell, that they did this not in any places with gesture morals, so that even the willingness to save the lost people, natural for the universal patron-the state in the person of the President-would not help them. But now the girls and their defenders have nothing to worry about-they are in the hands of the court, about which even the president hopes that the “correct decision, justified” will be made.

It is also important that Putin has mercy on the girls in London (the day before he visited the Olympic Games), far from the fact that such an answer could be shaken out of him in his homeland. The statement turned out to be forced, and their Russian politicians easily play back if necessary.

The second question: what does it mean “do not judge so strictly”? The word "defiled" Putin said, therefore, he believes the girls from Pussy Riot. The court will accept the final decision, in Putin, but “I did not want to comment on it.” How much does it “judge not strictly”? Five years, not seven? Or three, not five? For less than a year, when arresting at ten months, the court is unlikely to give. Therefore, Putin's humanity has its limits.

Again, the question remains: if not Vladimir Putin gave sanction to “figure it out in full”, then who? How strong and powerful is this unknown actor of the process, which conducts prosecutors, investigators and judges? After all, it may turn out that this person (or these people) is stronger than President Putin.

It is also elementary to Vladimir Putin to talk about the independence of the authorities, whether it be a court, parliament or the media. There is a space for manipulations, responsibility for its own decisions is removed, and finally, the reaction is simply expected to be “who will lead and begin to protrude about the independence of the branches this time.” Anyone who will react to the first -person wiring and perceive the words about freedom literally, to that the first will unscrew his head. Our president has many reasons to talk about the independence of the court.

In general, it turns out that the government system generates several signals at once, often simply contradicting each other. In one high office they say “yes”, but this does not mean that they will not say “no” in another. At the same time, it is difficult to predict in advance which of the signals in a particular case will become dominant - public or shadow.

At the same time, the idea of ​​the independence of all branches of power from each other is an extremely convenient thing. Thus, responsibility for making decisions, for their inaccurate understanding and incomplete good luck are smeared. You can obscure from criticism by parliamentarians representing a variety of political positions or qualified and completely independent lawyers working in the prosecutor's office and court. And even better - the fourth power that reflects the most diverse moods reigning in society. But, of course, she is not able to influence the court.

The decision -making system is non -public, the law and even common sense help here not very well. When the political strategist and in the past the functionary of the presidential administration, Alexei Chesnakov, says in an interview that he was not engaged in media management, he may formally be right. Well, he did not have this in his duties. Only here the Kremlin “Temniki” (the instructions of whom, how and on what topic should be interviewed by the Kremlin Media, primarily television channels) attributed to its authorship several years ago have excited Internet community. And in general, no doubt that TV in its information part is controlled by power is unlikely to have anyone.

Where there is a place of blurring of functions, blurred liability always appears. And more simply - irresponsibility.

If you answer only to the authorities, but there is no other control, then sooner or later you will begin to invent the same signals of the second type - non -public orders on behalf of the authorities, which the authorities themselves can not be reported. But the result, it seems to be an unknown apparatchian, will be pleasant to the authorities.

The myth of the “vertical of power” with the omnipotent Vladimir Putin at the top, full of PR managers of the authorities, and the myth, in order to correlate with the real levers of dominance (both formal and informal) not quite directly. That is, on the apparatchiks themselves the myth of the vertical also influences, but not as a "direct action law."

The authorities in hardware logic bear for all responsibility, and subordinates only fulfill orders at their discretion.

However, there is a sphere in which there is no need to expect a lack of zeal to execute. Rather, they will do it with overlap. This is when it comes to survival of power. The trouble is that the story with Pussy Riot seems to be perceived in this context. And then

Beating for the official is safer than to not be unable.

It seems like in the Ukrainian “Gongadze case”, at least in his most popular version. President Kuchma asked the man to "shut up", Gongadze was killed.

Since the powers and mechanisms of execution are not fully determined, the play to fulfill the wishes of the authorities is very large. Therefore, it is too early to enjoy Putin's liberalism to fans of Pussy Riot creativity. The commentary leaves opportunities for interpretation and it is likely that there is an “Orthodox prosecutor” or a hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, which will decrypt “do not need to be judged strictly” as “not seven years, but five”. Well, or "not five, but three."