For a modest handkerchief

Different judges judge differently.

For example, in sports, an honest referee awards the victory to the strongest. On the contrary, the corned judge has a warden to the one who bribed it. Something similar happens in the framework of those processes called political. The only difference is that such affairs in authoritarian states seeks to control power, therefore, corruption in them of a special kind, and honesty is manifested unexpectedly.

Suppose a constitutional court is studying a case that there is no need to study at all. Since the main law of the Russian Federation contains a norm that determines the priority of international laws over Russian, and there is just that case. However, we are talking about Yukos and its greedy shareholders, therefore, the authoritarian state and judges with great human pleasure are tapped on their constitution, and we must have considerable civil courage in order to recognize the decision of the colleagues illegal . Giving a good example to another colleague.

But it also happens that the authoritarian state refuses not only to judge, but also to conduct contractual matches. The authorities want to eliminate, which claims with all responsibility. This means that the power is irritated and scared by the games that are observing, and here you have a fresh plot . Well, judge for yourself, who will you announce the winner here if the Minister of Education of the Russian Federation and the head of the Chechen administration came together in a fundamental battle?

Olga Vasilieva against Ramzan Kadyrov. Orthodox-Soviet ideology against Islamic in its original Grozny packaging. Ice and flame.

On the one hand, the brave bureaucratic lady who rebelled against the wearing of hijabs at school. Living incarnation of the Divine, under the wing of a powerful Russian Orthodox Church. Religious lessons, cleaning school premises, "return to the best traditions", ambiguous Stalin and all that. On the other hand, a quick -tempered regional leader, who has his own religious customs, established during two fighter wars. On the one hand, the verdicts of the supreme courts, republican and federal, confirmed decisions on the ban on wearing hijabs. On the other hand, a valiant warrior, ready to equate to the shaitans and traitors of any judges, if they encroach on Islam. On the one hand, the constitution, which proclaims the secular character of the state. On the other hand, a real life, in which the law that was drawn and crowds of insulted believers who can fill entire stadiums, and what will you object to them? "My three daughters study at school, wear a hijab, have excellent grades. Olga Vasilieva demands that they take off the scarves?" - Askhan Akhmatovich asks, and this question cannot be called rhetorical. Although the head of the Czech Republic uses the word "rhetoric" with hunting and always to the place.

In short, in Kadyrov’s dispute with Vasilyeva, spirituality is faced with spirituality, caring such sparks that it is better to step aside, and this applies to all Russian citizens. Including the most seniorly. That is why Dmitry Peskov, commenting on the scandalous incident, speaks out with caution of the maximum. And you, say, is right, a woman, and you are right, dear head of the region.

All of them are right, according to the press secretary of Putin, listing in the narrative manner the arguments of the opponents and immediately distant from both of them. “We would not want to get in this discussion at the moment,” says Dmitry Sergeyevich, and these, of course, are very important words. For which the current request is guessed: is it possible to discuss it?

Paradoxical situation is developing. Nypypical for an authoritarian state, in which the authorities want to control its elites and be a supreme arbitrator in their disputes. It is noticeable, however, that neither Peskov nor his boss want to resolve the conflict between the Minister of Education and the National Chechen leader. This can still be called democracy: well, at what other regime are such loud discussions in intra -elite showdowns? We admit the obvious: at no one else. However, with one clarification.

Pluralism in Russia, as a rule, triumphs in cases where there is something to say or show Ramzan Kadyrov. Whether he tells Putin to go for a third term, whether he looks at which enemy in the sight of a sniper rifle, orders whether he orders the non -named security forces if they come to Chechnya. Or stigmatizes by a megaphone the judge of the sale. Or mocks over the dead, burning out likely killers. Or he is perplexed, finding that he was not sleeping from the treasury.

Or, as it is now, he makes a fuel to the federal minister, with whom they did not share scrapers, despite the fact that everyone has their own. Orthodox-Soviet power does not encourage hijabs. Islam, especially in Chechnya, painfully perceives any attempts by the center to impose some kind of supreme courts there.

It is also noted that it wins in these honest battles almost always Kadyrov. Sometimes with a devastating score, although it happens that with some difficulty. It is said that the president even scolds him occasionally and refuses meetings, but then he still softens his heart and justifies. Like, what do you want from people who ran yesterday in the forests with machine guns? In short, go all the forest, keep yourself in your hands and do not expect that I will intervene in your disputes, there are enough problems without you - this is how the president’s message to the elites sounded when they complained about Kadyrov. Or to Ramzan Akhmatovich, when he called himself.

Different judges judge differently, but democracy in a hybrid state differs from ordinary ones that inevitable furious disputes lead the characters in it completely non-vascular. Occasionally small, like the anti-Semite of the vice-speaker of Tolstoy, hastily rehabilitated by grateful official Jews. Or much larger, such as Sechin, who is supposed to ride with a miletic - and the disputes are over, and please follow where you are indicated. As well as the eternal Ramzan Akhmatovich, who cannot be weighed on any political scales, since such scales have not yet been invented.

That is why the news in which he is the main person involved, and so soon, with rare exceptions, the discussions with him are completed. Moreover, to general pleasure, and among those who are relieved to take a breath, hiding the annoyance and not knowing in essence what to say, the presidential spokesman. For there is a triumph of democracy, but you can’t say against it.