Senator who wanted change

Why is the Federation Council leave Konstantin Dobrynin, known for "non -standard" statements

The member of the Federation Council Konstantin Dobrynin is known for the unusual behavior for Russian legislators: he repeatedly publicly criticized plans for tightening Russian laws, in particular, the ban on Roskomnadzor to indicate in the press the causes of suicide of inconspicuously sick people and the law on the so -called "right to oblivion" on the Internet . At the end of June, Dobrynin also announced the possibility of recognizing in Russia same -sex marriages and the need to reduce the level of public aggression in relation to sexual minorities. Soon Dobrynin, Deputy Head of the Constitutional Legislation Committee, will leave the Upper House of Parliament. Why?

This decision, according to him, is connected with "plans to return to jurisprudence", which he has been engaged in his life. At the same time, Dobrynin does not intend to terminate socio-political activities, promising to maintain cooperation with the Federation Council in a different capacity. In an exclusive interview with Radio, Dobrynin spoke of the true reasons for his departure from the Federation Council, recalled the laws for which, contrary to parliamentary discipline, he did not vote, and explained why his colleagues voted for them.

- Konstantin, does your romance end with the Federation Council?

- Yes, you can say so. It remains a month and a half.

- And who finishes this novel? You said that you are leaving of your own free will. And the governor of the Arkhangelsk region, which you represent in the field, says that he did not include you in the list of candidates for senators. Who is parting with whom?

-The truth is always somewhere in the middle. However, in this case, she is still on my side. This is my desire to change the place of work. The governor simply did not make sense to include me on the list. There are no intrigues here.

-Your non-standard behavior in the role of a senator (although in the normal coordinate system this behavior would be considered absolutely adequate) somehow played a role? You probably annoyed many colleagues.

I'm just saying the words in which I believe

- I can say that in the past few years I am very annoying. It is annoyed that the norm is considered non -standard behavior. This is very stupid. I just say the words in which I believe in which I am confident from the human and legal point of view. I annoyed my statements to someone? Annoyed. My picture of the world could not coincide with the picture of my colleagues. However, I must note that I practically never noticed attempts to influence my opinion. My colleagues had discomfort, but this discomfort was debatable when I could just justify my point of view and stay with it.

- With Governor Orlov, what kind of relationship are you?

- In a good relationship. He never tried to influence my point of view. And he never tried to fight me for something.

- But at the same time, he commented on your departure in this way: "The Federation Council is a political body where professionals should work, who, on the one hand, are ready to represent the interests of the region, on the other, to be knowledgeable and experienced in the political sphere." Then he added that the new candidates "have a very understandable political story." So you have some kind of not very clear political story?

“Agree, I don’t need to ask what exactly he had in mind.” As far as I know, there was a slightly different context of the conversation, and the governor talked about the people he offers to the Federation Council.

Konstantin Dobrynin

-And he offers the mayor of Arkhangelsk, Viktor Pavlenko, State Duma deputy from United Russia Elena Voygin and former vice-governor of regional politics Sergei Kovalev. What are these people? Will they, unlike you, find a common language with Vitaly Milonov?

-Milonov is still an extreme.

- With the conventional Milonov, Konstantin.

-No, no, let's about the specific first. I do not think that with Milonov, one of the colleagues will desire to find a common language.

- Okay, then with Medinsky. They will find these people, which the governor offers, a common language with the Minister of Culture, with whom you also had, to put it mildly, disagreement?

Someone also likes Medinsky’s books, which are not books and literature. But this is a matter of taste

- But these are already evaluative questions. My assessment of Medinsky’s statements is built on life experience, on my knowledge. Why should I assume how other people will evaluate Medinsky? Someone also likes Medinsky’s books, which are not books and literature. But this is a matter of taste.

- Konstantin, of course, is interested in the worldview of new people who come to the parliament that occupy your place. We live with them.

“I know these people well.” They are professional in their areas. They are conservative. But we have a conservative country. There will be a different tonality, there will be other estimates and other points of view. There were others, others will become.

- Have you talked with Valentina Matvienko about your care? Has she really made any attempts to keep you? Is it really not necessary to do the advantage of doing that sane people work there, that there are slightly more opinions in the upper house than one thing?

- I have a very respectful attitude to Valentina Matvienko. I am grateful to her for the science that I received in the Federation Council. I discussed my further future with her. So far I do not want to disclose some details of our conversation. I can only say that Matvienko understood my decision and made it. Moreover, she supported me.

- You are in the Council of Council since 2012. Tell us what you managed to do as a senator and what you planned to do, but did not?

- It would, of course, be arrogant to beat himself in the chest and be proud of what I did ...

Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky and the head of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko

-Now you can.

- I interacted with the Federal Chamber of Lawyers for three years. We made changes to the criminal procedure legislation to eliminate numerous absurdities, gaps, strange legal omissions that really spoiled their lives, influenced their destinies. We have made about ten such amendments. Some of them have already become laws, some are now under consideration in the State Duma, and I am sure that after a while and they will become laws. This work is routine, it may not be visible to all people, and it should not be visible, because no one is going to study the Code of Criminal Procedure until it touches someone closely. I can say for sure that it will be easier to defend their rights with our amendments. There is another field of activity that concerned me, it is the protection of people with disabilities. For about two years, my colleagues and I developed a law on the reform of guardianship and trusteeship. The law will be entered before my departure, in early September. This is a very good law that makes boarding schools more open, protects the rights of people who are in boarding schools and who are often deprived of the opportunity to correctly exercise their rights.

- How did you react in recent years to those laws that have risen from the lower house to you? "The Law of Dima Yakovlev", the law on "gay propaganda" and many others-did you vote for them?

- Regarding Dima Yakovlev’s law, I publicly expressed my rejection. I did not vote for this law. I believe that this law is excessive.

-Were there any consequences for you in this regard?

Gay propaganda is simply impossible. "Law on Gay Propaganda" is meaningless

- There were no consequences. I was able to justify my point of view in conversations with colleagues. I also did not support the Antiga Law either. And did not vote for him. Because it has nothing to do with the law. From the point of view of law, this is generally a funny thing, because gay propaganda is simply impossible. You can promote a system of views among many addressees. And on this you can put an end. The Law on Gay Propaganda is simply meaningless. I did not vote for the law on rallies. I did not vote for Internet restraints. Because if I do not vote for something, then I have a clear position on this score. If I can justify this position for myself, then I do not vote. This is fine.

-I believe that your colleagues in the Federation Council, who voted for the "Law of Dima Yakovlev", also in fact have a position on this subject, and it is most likely not cannibaling, just people were afraid to vote differently as it should.

- This is a very philosophical question: what does each of us believe in? It's hard for me to be responsible for them. Everyone has their own internal justification, attitude. I don't know.

- It happened that, after these dubious votes, colleagues on the sidelines fit and sting their hands: they say, thank you, senator, you are a real person!

- Yes, according to some controversial things, my colleagues have supported me backstage. In the smoking room, we discussed a lot: who voted, why, why, who is going to vote.

- In the smoking room, your colleagues said one thing, and then went to the hall and pressed the buttons completely differently?

- Not quite so. They just squeeze my hand tightly and say that they respect my point of view.

State Duma deputy Mikhail Degtyarev (left) and the leader of the LDPR Vladimir Zhiirinovsky in Usachevsky baths. Moscow, 2013

- Let's recall your political story and reasons for the nervousness that you threw up to your opponents and colleagues. Firstly, you called the State Duma deputies who are promoting on high-profile and crazy laws, to pass the mandates. You meant Degtyarev, Nilov, Solovyov and Fedorov, who publicly compared the State Duma with the theater. Degtyarev then did not call you to a duel?

- He did not call me to the duel. But I was once invited to speak in some kind of program, and Degtyarev suddenly came there. We argued with him quite nicely. Degtyarev is engaged in conscious trolling. Naturally, he does not believe in those things that he broadcasts. Yes, this is cynical, but this is his choice. Let the story judge him. But everything is clear.

-Secondly, you sharply reacted to the Minister of Culture of Medinsky, who allowed himself almost a boorish attack on the head of the state head. You besieged Medinsky, saying that the archive is not a pantry, but a doctor of historical sciences Mironenko is not a storekeeper. You know, this conflict is too drawn on the main reason for your departure from the Federation Council. Yesterday you besieged the Minister, today you are leaving the parliament ...

- This is wrong. It is very difficult to suspect me in some kind of conspiracy with Medinsky: they say, Medinsky decided right now to say such an absurd thing, and Dobrynin decided to criticize it right now. No. He just said that. And it was impossible to miss.

- Even as possible.

- I - no. I am very good about Sergey Mironenko. This is an outstanding scientist. A person with interesting views. With academic knowledge. It is useful to listen to it. And try to teach the historian what and how to comment on ... This is some kind of nonsense. It seems to me that I have expressed my disagreement quite correctly with the position of a respected minister.

Milonov is an unhappy person. This is a guy with a very difficult fate

-Thirdly, you asked the head of the Investigative Committee of Alexander Bastrykin to check Vitaly Milonov for sanity. It was as if in spite of it publicly talked about the possibility of gay brothers in Russia. Milonov is probably rubbing his hands joyfully now.

- Milonov is an unhappy person. This is a guy with a very difficult fate. He was an assistant to Starovoyova. At one time, he even organized a movement called "Anti-Anti Nato".

- He was generally quite a Libertarian ...

- Yes. And this is his wildest and forced transformation - this is a dead end. This impasse is visible to everyone. You can only regret Milonov in a certain sense. And he is not good for St. Petersburg and the country. But, it seems to me that most people understand this. And without my help.

-Fourth, you criticized the deputy of the Yarovy for obvious stupidity, when she pulled a bill to the Duma on the prohibition of criticism of the actions of the troops of the anti-Hitler coalition.

- The bill of Yarovaya legally, to put it mildly, was inaccurate. He was absurd from the point of view of internal logic, he contradicted to himself. The fight against Nazism should be very accurate legal in nature, and not populist.

-Konstantin, the Federation Council will not be yearning for especially without you. New blood flows into this institute. Here Elena Borisovna Mizulina, for example, will surely be an extremely effective senator. Tell me, do adequate people remain there?

Graffiti depicting Vitaly Milonov and Elena Mizulin

- There are all adequate people. You just need to understand that people are different. And I will stand on this thesis. Yes, most senators are conservatives. But our country is the same. When they say about the State Duma: “They chose!”, I do not agree with this. They did not pick up, but chose what is. The State Duma is a section of society. Elena Mizulina? You know, with all the ambiguous attitude towards her, it cannot be denied that she is a brilliant lawyer. She is the author of the Criminal Code. She is a serious person. Why does she now have some, from my point of view, distortions ... I don't know. But it cannot be put on a par with Degtyarev and Milonov. This is a completely different story.

- How and why did you yourself end up in the Federation Council in 2012?

- That was my decision. I just at some point considered what I want and can be useful in politics. Before that, I tried to run for the State Duma, but did not pass.

- God saved ...

- Then he got into the municipality. And then he was delegated to the Federation Council. But at the same time, I do not enter into any party. I am non -partisan.

- Working as a senator, did you have to do what was disgusting to you? Crossed through yourself?

- This is always the case in life, not only for senators. There are things that you do, but they are not very pleasant for you. But it is always very important to understand internal logic. For example, you do not agree with something, but if you admit that other legal logic is possible and even if you disagree with it, you are ready to support colleagues. Politics is always a compromise in a certain sense.

- Is there at least one crazy law on your memory, which the Council has braked and did not bring to the president?

Politics is always a compromise in a certain sense

- Such a characteristic of the law - "crazy" - is not very correct for a lawyer. But I can say that in my memory there were several bills that the Federation Council rejected. One of them was rejected on my personal initiative. It concerned a clumsy change in the rules in the Arbitration Procedure Code. There are such laws, they are simply not in sight, they are not resonant, but from this they are no less important.

- What does work in the Federation Council look like? Can you describe your working day there?

- I really like the work in the Federation Council. Of the entire legal work, this is the top. This is interesting. Because you can influence legislative things. When you manage to make your thoughts become law, it is very pleasant. The working day in the Federation Council consists conditionally of three parts. The first is legislative activity. When you either write a bill yourself, or evaluate the bill of colleagues. The second is a reaction to people's circulation. The third part of the work is representative functions when you are obliged to participate in different discussions.

-And yet I do not understand. If you like work in the Federation Council so much, then why are you depriving yourself of this now?

-From the table you need to go out with a feeling of easy hunger. When you see the next stage, you should never hold on to the chair. Moreover, the Senator’s chair was not an end in itself for me. I just tried to change some things. And I succeeded. So I will work further. In the end, I am 38 years old. There is still much to come. You know, a real politician should implement his values, his guidelines, and not adapt to someone else. Especially if you disagree with them.

Meeting of the Federation Council

- How has the life of the Federation Council changed with the departure of the chairman Sergei Mironov and the arrival of Valentina Matvienko? Became "more incendiary"?

- I did not find Sergey Mironov. I can say that with the advent of Matvienko, the Federation Council gained legal personality. The Federation Council began to be perceived as a separate subject that affects the processes, has its own point of view.

- Another thing is that this point of view almost always coincides with the "general line."

- Matvienko has giant performance. And senators simply can’t mess around against this background. There is no chance.

- Matvienko is able to perceive an alternative point of view? Have you argued with her?

- We had frequent discussions with her. I had my own point of view, she had her own, sometimes they did not match, sometimes she could convince me. But it has always been very correct.

- Have you had to argue with her about the conflict in Ukraine?

-I would not want to disclose some private conversations.

- There is a popular opinion that the Federation Council is a place for very rich people. Billionaires are sitting there and quietly sign the laws that the lower house of parliament supplies them. Are you a billionaire? What is your business?

- They are no longer sitting.

- Where did they go?

- This stereotype about billionaires is not relevant for three years. And I myself am not a billionaire. I am a wealthy person. I used to be engaged in the legal business. For a long time I worked in the pulp and paper industry. There is a business related to real estate from which I receive legal income.

-Is it true that you once sat Dmitry Medvedev even before his premiere and presidency?

Do what you should, and what will happen! This principle seems right to me

- This is a journalistic meme. It so happened that I worked in one company in which Dmitry Medvedev worked at one time. When he left, I came. We really were in the same position of the director of legal advice. Еще он преподавал на факультете, когда я учился. Я его видел, он вел семинары, но лично мы не знакомы.

– Зачем вам все это нужно было? Я имею в виду вашу критику происходящего безумия, мракобесия, глупости депутатов и чиновников? Почему вы открыто это все высмеивали, не боясь, что это сработает против вас, что в итоге, по моему мнению, и произошло?

– Понимаете, вот мой отец – тоже юрист. Он полковник еще советской милиции. Он мне всегда говорил: делай что должен, и будь что будет! Вот этот принцип мне кажется правильным. Я просто делаю то, что я должен делать. Если я вижу глупость, то я корректно скажу, что это неправильно, так делать не надо. Получится переубедить – хорошо. Если человек задумается о моих словах – это уже плюс. Why is this necessary? Хочется что-то изменить, хочется поменять страну.

– Какие у вас творческие планы? Чем займетесь?

– Юриспруденцией. Не хочу и не могу говорить сейчас конкретно. Но это в любом случае будет связано с общественно-политической деятельностью. И это будет связано с правом. Я юрист, я бы не хотел уходить от права куда-то далеко, не хочу уходить от права влево.

– Вы понимаете, что с вашим уходом дефицит здравого смысла в парламенте существенно возрастет?

– Сейчас возрастет, сейчас более популярен ультраконсерватизм. Но история циклична. Будет новый цикл. Everything has its time.