Translated material
Dmitry Gudkov: "This is the House of Knobkakavas"
35-year-old Dmitry Gudkov had every chance of making a decent career. Young, textured, with a well -suspended language and long -standing connections both in the apparatus on the Okhotny series and “behind the wall” - in the presidential administration, besides the son of the KGB colonel in reserve, that in today's Chekist Russia an unconditional plus, under other circumstances, could easily head the subcommittee or the State Duma committee, then he would have shook it to the executive power and watched to the executive power and watched to the executive power surrounding from the darkened window of personal Audi. Actually, five years ago he looked like such a major boy, promising to inherit a decent state. The 2011 parliamentary elections, protests in Astrakhan and Moscow, where they and his father-the deputy from the State Duma from “Fair Russia” Gennady Gudkov-were played by the first violins, the “Italian strike” in June 2012, when the Gudkovs and deputy Ilya Ponomarev tried to somehow prevent the Dragon law on rallies, excluding the party (together With the father) in March 2013, for participating in the “march against the scoundrels”-this is how the fatherland lost the official with the mandate and received a policy for whom the common good is not an empty phrase. Today, Dmitry Gudkov is an independent deputy of the State Duma, a really independent, rare voice trying to resist obscurantism in an institution that, in fact, has become a place where there is no discussion and should not be, a meeting of people who answer all the initiatives of officials “yes!” And add: "What else do you deign?" 
"Fair Russia." - NT ), but often allow themselves to vote differently from a fraction. I often vote for them and by proxy - this is allowed by the regulations of the Duma - if I have time to run away: I have a place almost at the very top of the hall, and Petrov, for example, sits on the front row. And for Ilya Ponomarev, who is now forced to be outside Russia, I also vote by proxy. And, for example, according to the law on the transfer of elections (
From December to September 2016. - NT ) Not only four, but also the group of Oksana Dmitrieva, and the Communists voted against the faction.
According to the Law on the inclusion of Crimea in the Russian Federation, only Ilya Ponomarev voted from the whole Duma? Yes. Zubov and Petrov and I simply decided not to vote.
Do you often make obstruction colleagues? You know, everything looks different from the outside than from the inside. Many deputies, including from United Russia, understand everyone and even support my initiatives on the sidelines. But they became hostages of a system in which all power is concentrated by the president, and the parliament has turned into a second -grade power - into the ward of such button -bits. And they are forced to play according to these rules. They are already built into the system and cannot change anything. I have such a respectful attitude to me, despite the fact that during the vote they occupy a completely opposite position.
Can you give an example? The question of the return of direct elections of the mayor. Believe me that if it were not for the Kremlin’s political will, the United Russia would support this initiative, because among the United Russia there are a lot of representatives of the regions who see what the system for the appointment of governors and mayors leads to. Instead of the elected mayors there, the appointments who work in the interests of the Moscow business or in the interests of some Kremlin or Zamrevsky businessmen, which causes damage to the city, and they cannot affect this. So, when I made this initiative - to return the elections of mayors - many United Russia came up and said: “Dima, you are, of course, right, we could not support you, but you are certainly right, and sooner or later you will achieve this ...” or - the initiative about the abolition of our embargo to Western goods. Also very many came up to me and said: “A completely correct initiative, Russia loses from this, this led to an increase in prices, this deprived our banks, our credit resources enterprises.” But, unfortunately, they publicly occupy a different position. Everyone understands - and United Russia - that the transfer of elections is a violation of the constitution, that the game was not worth the candle, because the authorities have the opportunity to provide for any result, not to let the opposition to the elections, but they said in the administration - and took under the visor. Or the same “Law of Dima Yakovlev”-many worried that they had to vote for the law that kills orphans.
I do not justify them - in no case, I just explain what the atmosphere is really inside the Duma.
According to your estimates, what percentage of deputies shares your views? I think half of the deputies is at least. But there is, of course, the fear of losing their place under the sun as a result of the democratization of the country, but in general, it seems to me that even the United Russia themselves suffer from this.
At what point do you think the Duma of the sixth convocation broke the ridge? When they were deprived of the mandate of Gennady Gudkov (in September 2012) - they were deprived of completely lawlessness. It was then that the deputy mandate and deputy status were actually turned into nothing. Now any deputy at any time can lose the mandate only because the investigator or prosecutor wanted it.
Now few people even have a desire to go to the administration or the government-to compete for or against some initiative: if the political decision is made, everything, there can be no other opinion.
Well, the second point, when many were bent, is a vote according to the "law of Dima Yakovlev."
How does it technically happen? Are the leaders of the fractions called in the AP and give introductory ones? I do not know how this happens in detail, because I do not participate in such negotiations. But I think when something important-such as voting on the Crimea or on the Law of Dima Yakovlev,-they probably call the leaders of the factions and they say, this initiative, which is supported by the president, so everyone needs to support. When something is not so global, then self-censorship is triggered. There are minor questions, and there probably is already a self -censorship.
For example, when we introduced a bill on the abolition of the embargo to import Western products, including to limit the president’s right to introduce such economic measures, which, in fact, is the fulfillment of the requirements of the Constitution, then, under this legislative initiative, MP Doronin from Kirov Region and Serdyuk from Khanty-Mansiysk, besides me, Zubov and Petrov. This initiative in the line of the Fair Russia party program, because the party advocated parliamentary control over the actions of the government. I am sure that there was no team from the presidential administration, there are no instructions from Volodin (
First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration. ), or there was no domestic policy (AP). But Mironov, as he saw that the media presented this as anti-presidential initiatives, was so frightened and reprimanded to Zubov, Serdyuk, Doronin and ordered them to quickly withdraw his signatures from the bill.
And there are laws - like a noisy "Rotenberg law" (
The Law on Compensation to Russians who suffered from the "non -legal decisions" of foreign vessels, including the imposition of sanctions. ), under which, let's say, it is not a royal business to sign the leaders of the faction. Under the bills with the soul, which is called, as a rule, representatives of all fractions are signed, well, at the level of little -known deputies.
Recently, there was a bill that allowed the Prosecutor General and his deputies to close public organizations, NPOs, commercial organizations - the Law on undesirable foreign organizations: I am sure that the decision was made, as they say, at the level of the Security Council, that is, at the highest level. But the bill was introduced by a deputy of Tarnavsky ... somehow it happens.
Do “looking” from the AP come to vote in the Duma so that the deputies do not deviate from the line of power? This is an exaggeration. There are representatives of the President in the State Duma-three or four people. But they are no one who do not look, besides, all issues are resolved in advance. There are separate cases when the deputy fluctuates, but there is enough the leader of the fraction or some deputy who is responsible for voting. Each fraction has voting duty: if even half does not come per hour of voting, you need to press all the buttons. Therefore, each fraction determines the vote on duty: for example, for every two rows, one person - they must ensure the vote of the faction.
It seems to me that the “Law of Dima Yakovlev” was such a conscious provocation: then they really crushed, the deputies - especially after the “march against the scoundrels”, when their portraits were thrown into garbage containers - realized that they took sin to the soul and became completely dependent on the authorities. Because if you have committed one meanness, then it seems to you that it doesn’t care how many more vile laws to support. Or you had to immediately say “no”, as we - eight deputies, we said “no”, and we live with this easily, or - all ...
Well, what will happen to the deputy who was loyal, and then suddenly decided not to support more vile initiatives? If this is the Kremlin’s initiative - at least deprivation of the mandate with all the ensuing, but there may be destruction of the business. System - it is very ruthless in relation to how to say it ...
... to the apostates? To those yes, who was once in this system. The system - it does not refuse back, and I think this is a big problem for many deputies.
The speaker of the State Duma, does he decide something or do he also decide everything in the Kremlin? The speaker of the State Duma is a member of the team that makes all decisions in the country. Naryshkin - he is so looking, or something, behind the State Duma.
What prevails in the Duma: cynicism or fear? Both. Fear - to the authorities, the fear that it will be with them when everything collapses - because most deputies have no doubt about the mistake of the course, they express these doubts about their private conversations. Although there are those who believe that oil will still cost $ 120 and Putin will keep the situation. Cynism is a common cynicism of our entire political system, which clearly degrades, which clearly does not think about the future. See what the agenda is now: the fight against external threats, the fight against the Maidans, revolutions - all that has been accepted recently, it all aims to protect against future protests and problems.
Will you go to the polls in 2016? Be sure, politics is my profession.
Photo: Ilya Talev/ITAR-TASS, Dmitry Dukhanin/Kommersant