Impersonal responsibility

The sentence to Alexei Navalny is a new stage in the development of the Russian situation. For the first time, the authorities brazenly and without any reason sent the recognized leader of the opposition to the zone. Prior to this, there was a fishing for small fish for the acute. Now it is openly announced that the political struggle in Russia is inevitably passing through the camp hut. The municipal filter instantly transformed into a cage with handcuffs.

States that have emerged from the zone of legality get rid of those who are objectionable in two ways. The first and most proven is the murder. The second, used with Navalny, is the investigation and judgment. It’s good that Navalny is alive: "After all, he could have a razor."

The question arises: why does the state, which in its special services has so many worn out killers and is not burdened with conscience, does not send all the objectionable agent with Polonia? It would seem that it is easier, cheaper and more effective than starting with the courts. Why, for example, was Stalin to fool around with processes and even with triples, who sent three signatures on a piece of paper into the next world when he could execute people without any trial?

It would be wrong, in my opinion, to believe that the Stalinist terror or farce around Kirovles needs court to give the reprisals of legitimacy. Power in such cases usually does not bother to create at least an external decor of the rule of law. The press secretary of the Investigative Committee, not at all embarrassed, recognized the custom and political nature of the reprisal .

The answer to the question about criminal use of justice lies in a different plane. The murder leaves behind a corpse and the fact of a crime, which at some point implies an investigation. The murder is guilty that is looking for the guilty. Shchekochikhin and Politkovskaya will never calm down in the grave. When the crime is arranged through the courts and the bureaucratic machine, it ceases to be guilty. It is enough to place the pursuit of the bureaucratic machine that is obscene in the context of the bureau - and the wine for the deed begins to dissolve. Everything is sprayed between colorless clerks, their pieces of paper and procedural procedures.

In the end, the judge Blinov is not a killer running at night along the street with a knife. This is just an insignificant and obedient bureaucrat who executing the order from above. At the process in Jerusalem, the SS Obersturmbanfuhrer Adolf Eichmann, responsible for the destruction of the Jews, constantly emphasized his personal insignificance and depicted a retreating bureaucrat, which performed instructions from above. This is what made Hannah Arendt determine the evil enclosed in a criminal state machine, as a banal one.

The judicial reprisal allows us to evade personal responsibility for the deed. Wine disappears in a car claiming impersonal autonomy of functioning in accordance with the rules and protocols. Evil loses his face, becomes banal. It can be assumed that it was Putin who gave the order on Navalny, personally appointing him a “Piglet” if you use the presidential style. But there is no doubt that he, as always, depicts ignorance and will refer to the supposedly complete autonomy of the court, which works himself, without someone’s personal guide will. The law that claims to be transcendence and supposedly stands above human passions (for example, revenge), like Kafka, overshadows this impersonality of judicial mechanics. No will, no guilt. Inside the wine system, it is not formed into a kind of tangible substance.

Conditions can beat Maria Alekhin with her lawyer. You can beat Magnitsky in prison. The tortures are part of the permissible system of the protocol that is not guilty. But as soon as the system went over the stick and bring Magnitsky to death, as the corpse appeared - and a cloud of guilt hung over the bureaucrats. A monstrous trial of a dead auditor is an unimaginable attempt to dissolve the corpse in the posthumous trial, bureaucratically dissolve the murder, and therefore guilt, in procedural trouble.

The scandal with the Magnitsky list , I believe, is associated precisely with a violation of this rule of non -production of guilt. The fact that killer bureaucrats were suddenly named as criminals came into an acute contradiction with the principle of banality and non-punishability of systemic evil. The list caused such a storm in the Kremlin and the surroundings because it questioned the unpunished functioning of state criminality. After all, if the system can be guilty, then any representative of this system can become guilty - and the more power is concentrated in his hands, the more likely that it will be found guilty.

Acting the described way, the authorities, however, do not understand that, zealous, it itself contributes to the collapse of its own system. Each new process attracts more and more attention and causes more indignation. The fact that, in theory, is intended to disappear and dissolve in Kafkianic intricacies begins to expose more and more and go on public. The rule of impersonality is corroded, and a stigma that cannot be washed off on the odious figures like Bastrykin. The list of magnetic and constant requirements of its expansion has already shown that the period of fundamental impunity has come to an end. Ahead of us, probably, more and more absurd processes and the unsteady tantrum of the authorities, who feel that the gloom in which the bandits in the mantles and uniforms began to dissipate.