Pavel Chikov and Sergey Guriev (from left to right)

VTIMES continue to publish an interview with the economist Sergey Guriev “What () WHAT” - about how to build free and prosperous Russia and what needs to be done first of all when the opportunity to change. Interlocutors Sergey Guriev are leading Russian economists, jurists, political scientists. Video version of the interview can be look On the YouTube channels of Sergey Guriev and the Rain TV channel.

Economists often argue with each other. But there is a topic where all economists have a complete consensus: one of the main obstacles to the economic growth of Russia is an ineffective, corrupt and unaccountable law enforcement system. About what to do with her, Sergei Guriev talks to the head of the international human rights group "Agora" Pavel Chikov.

- Pavel, if you chose what the Russian law enforcement system and the Russian judicial system need to be built, what would you do?

- First, I must say that there are systemic problems that interfere first of all. This, of course, is a large consolidation of power and powers in the hands of law enforcement agencies, their centralization, their federal subordination, their number, their functionality, their budget - bloated, giant, and this is clearly inadequate to many things. For all Soviet and post -Soviet times, the lowest crime rate is now. If the crime is low, why do we need so many law enforcement agencies?

The average world figure is known - these are three policemen per thousand inhabitants. In America - three with a little. In Japan, in Scandinavia, in India - one policeman per thousand inhabitants. We have a rude counting - at least nine police officers per thousand inhabitants, and perhaps this number is 12. That is, we can easily set ourselves the task of reducing three times the standard number of law enforcement agencies.

This means that three times more money will be released. This means that you can increase monetary allowance to the remaining ones, you can increase the requirements for the remaining ones, therefore, choose at least one of three, and it is better to scoop up people from the outside of this system.

Second. We live in the declared federation, but in reality, in fact, all law enforcement functions have federal subordination. Moreover, one of the main ideas of the police reform 2010–2011. There was a final solution to the issue of federalization of the police. Because until that time the police were subordinate simultaneously to the regional authorities. We had things to do when one specific district police officer beat some detainee, [precinct] was condemned. And when it came to the recovery of compensation for non -pecuniary damage to the victim, the question arose: which budget to pay from? And we had cases when the court recovered in jointly from the municipal, from the regional and federal budget 33%, because the salary of this district police officer consisted of three different budgets of different levels. Now all the police are on the salary of only the federal center.

- When you said “federalization”, you meant subordination to the federal center. Because when people say “federalization”, they often mean, on the contrary, decentralization.

- I mean that federal subordination and centralization were the task of the police, but it is necessary to decentralize: more authority to the regions, more authority to municipalities, because crime in 90% of cases is absolutely specific in each particular region. If this is a border region, it will be some kind of smuggling, if these are Siberian regions, there is illegal deforestation. If these are the regions standing on the drug trafficking, it will be drug trafficking. In some regions there are mainly urban population, and there will be apartment thefts. In rural regions there will be theft of livestock, and these are different crimes, they are revealed differently, they have different perfect stories and specifics.

This year, the Twitter account of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Yakutia became popular,
There is a very cheerful SMM-driver, and he writes about what he is doing, in fact, the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Yakutia, what trips they go to. And it is naturally funny. And at the same time, you need to understand that in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Yakutia there is, for example, the Center for Combating Extremism, from which - take out and put the identified cases, preventive measures included in the list of potential extremists, and other different indicators that the federal center requires them. Well, there are no extremists in Yakutia, but they should be.

And this approach, which is spent on human resources, financial resources, temporary resources, political will, is a distortion of a real picture, it is a gigantic. Why? Because everything is ultimately imprisoned on one specific person - the Minister of the Interior.

And the theory of management suggests that the organization of the number of half a million people, a million people can be effective only in one case - if this is an army, at a war of war, where instant punishment on the spot follows the failure to fulfill the order. Only in this case. That is, roughly speaking, the theory of the organization suggests that such a structure as the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in the current form cannot be effective. Therefore, it must be reduced, it is obviously separated by both horizontally and vertically.

- That is, you imagine a situation where there are regional law enforcement agencies that receive their budget from the region and the chief is appointed regional authorities. You also see the municipal police, where the head of the municipal police is appointed or selected by voters. Well, probably, there is some federal body such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations or the Investigative Committee that is engaged in federal crimes.

- Yes, something like you say, but this is a rude approach. At the same time, my inner conviction is that most of the [powers] should be in municipalities. And best if these are elected positions. You can make direct parallels with the sheriff elections in the United States. Of course, we have never tried this, and we generally have big problems with the election institution. But [this reform] cannot be separated from other reforms - political, reform of local self -government and other things. They will be effective and successful only together.

- When we are talking about reforms, often people say that reform is unpopular, painful. The trade unions of the police will probably not be happy if we reduce the number of police officers three times. But from the point of view of ordinary Russian citizens, is the police reform - the creation of an accountable, competent, not corrupt police - the most popular reform in Russia?

- Of course, yes. There was a completely crazy demand from the public for the reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 2010. If reminded, the trigger was the shooting of Major Denis Evsyukov in Moscow, and this caused simply giant public indignation. And at that time, President Dmitry Medvedev made an offer of online public hearings on the draft law “On Police”. And it received more than 25,000 offers. That is, the very fact of the number and great interest - it shows how much society wants to change the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

But the minus here is that there will be less trust now, because it is blown up just 10 years ago, and it will be more difficult to generate the same support again.

- You say that crimes should be investigated at the local level. What other functions should be transferred to which departments, which units need to be closed? For example, what to do with the prosecutor's office, the Investigative Committee? What functions do you need to pick up from the FSB, do the FSB leave at all or completely close? Should organs exist as the Center for Combating Extremism? Do I need to close the Russian Guard, transfer it to some other unit? What to do with the services that the Ministry of Internal Affairs now provide in terms of passports, registrations, migration service, how should it be arranged?

- These are a lot of questions, Sergey. Obviously, some functions are redundant, and you need to get rid of them. And it is clear that the road map should be spelled out, that is, some things should be immediately, and then after some time you can change something else. In large cities there may be a large police corps, because it is obviously necessary - Moscow, Petersburg and other millionaires. Whether it is needed by the general region, at the level of the subject of the Federation, - I still hesitate. Because when divided into federal, regional and municipal levels, conflicts are inevitable. Hundreds of American films were shot about conflicts between the FBI, the local police and everything else. And you need to understand that this is the payment that you will have to pay, because it is these conflicts that provide a certain balance of power vertically.

It is clear that a certain federal functionality should remain, and above all, these are crimes that are interregional or national nature. There may be terrorism, large drug trafficking, and corruption of federal officials, and crimes by federals, and in relation to the federals. This system is very complicated, and therefore there should not be such simple monosyllabic solutions, and I do not want to look like a person who knows simple solutions.

- Do you know difficult solutions? They say: we do not want usurpation of power by the local sheriff and the creation of a conditional kushchevka, but we do not want the usurpation of the authorities of Moscow. If you need to make specific decisions, how would you approach this?

- All that we are talking about here are classical state functions, they have always been: the functions of protecting public order, the functions of the court. And there is no something that we must invent. It is enough to see retrospectively or at other countries, how certain issues are resolved. Secondly, there is practical experience, it is giant. Moreover, both negative and positive. It is clear that there is more negative, that is, almost certainly we know how it is not necessary. As it should, it will depend on which model we focus on.

Often praised the American model. And there are a lot of complaints about the American model. From the point of view of prison, for example, in no case should we do a prison on the American model. We must definitely not [do] the police in the American model, from the point of view of how it is prone to the use of violence: the problem with the very free use of firearms by American police are well known, and giant spears are breaking around it right now by human rights organizations and politicians in the United States of America.

That is, roughly speaking, we need a critical approach to the experience of others and, of course, the adoption of positive experience. If you speak very rudely, there is a Scandinavian model of the prison, it is considered the best in the world. Let's take and try to integrate the Scandinavian prison model in Russia.

There is an American court, which is a model in the world, and in general the Anglo -Saxon general law system is recognized as the best. It is clear that we will have big conflicts, including with theorists, because we have a traditional continental model, and we cannot simply take and cross out the whole experience that we had, and traditions, and bring here the case right according to the Anglo-American model. But, then, it is necessary, at least, here to sit and think.

- Returning to questions about functions. As I understand it, you want, for example, to leave the FSB, but to give it the functions of fighting the spies, perhaps, external terrorists. Probably, economic functions are the function of some Federal Bureau of Investigation, whether it be the Investigative Committee of Russia or somehow a differently called bureau. How successful it seems to you by a precedent for allocating a function, for example, inspection of vehicles from the Ministry of Internal Affairs? And is it worth it to extend it to other service functions?

- Without a doubt: what can be privatized should be privatized - from law enforcement of such functions. And what can still be technologized, that is, translated into a conditionally electronic form. What, it is necessary to praise, the Russian state has been greatly successful in the last 10 years: a huge number of services are now available in two or three clicks and without leaving home.

If we are talking about the FSB, this is a difficult question, because it largely depends on the competence, powers and exhilaration, for example, a certain federal investigation service, which is also talking about. Obviously, the FSB now has too many excessive functions, including in an unusual sphere - in economics, in drugs, in corruption, all this should not be in the field of competence.

It is obvious to me that in the current situation one of the first decisions - it is necessary to determine the fate of the prosecutor's office. Because now it is a 100,000th army of absolute loafers. All this so-called general supervision, atavism of the Soviet era, when for some reason the prosecutor, and not the court decide what is legal and what is illegal, it is necessary to get rid of the next day in general, the first stroke of the pen. This function should fly away. And the function of the investigation from the prosecutor's office went to the Investigative Committee 13 years ago. There remains one single natural function-support of the state prosecution.

In America, this function is performed by the Ministry of Justice, he is also a prosecutor, and at the same time he is still an elected position. That is, why not do exactly the same thing and to unite, at least, the Ministry of Justice with the prosecutor’s office and leave the authority to support the state prosecution to the united department and not make the head of the office an elective position? This alone will already change the entire configuration.

The role of the investigation, of course, also needs to be reduced, because the investigation is people who collect evidence and are charging, everything. Further, the prosecutor, as a person who supports the state prosecution in court, must decide whether to drag this case to the court or not to drag, it is enough argued to count on a conviction or not, the accused is ready to make a transaction on a pre -trial agreement in order to save taxpayers' money or not. If this is an elected position that will be paid from the corresponding level of the budget, respectively, this person will save budget funds.

Even now, in Russia, 75% of criminal cases are considered in a special order. That is, roughly speaking, the very simplified legal proceedings and the same deal with justice that we adopted from the same America, by and large. And this is how the cases are mainly considered there: 90% of criminal cases in the United States of America does not reach the court, the court only fixes the agreement that was reached with the prosecutor.

- Returning to the police. The main question that people always ask is the incentives of the police. Everyone complains about the "stick" system. How to make the police, on the one hand, do their job, and on the other hand, do not seek to perform artificial indicators? How to reconfigure the incentives of police officers?

- As a graduate manager, I’ll say that you can’t go anywhere from quantitative indicators: you still have to count and compare. The only question is what is considered a quantitative indicator, what is considered a “stick”. And what influence the comparison has on current daily activities.

That is, the problem is not that the number of registered crimes is considered, the number of disclosed, the number of directed to the court - this is precisely there is no difficulty. The problem is that everything is simplified to disgrace - as a result, once again, precisely the giant structure. You see, when there are very few in the organization of hundreds of thousands of employees, time, capabilities and resources. The numbers simplify the management process. It is enough to ask: what do we have from the department A, department B and department C, and what did they have last year? So that for himself a person who makes a decision draws a very simple conclusion: there was so much before, but now it has become so much. And, therefore, there is an incorrect conclusion further that they did not work well. That is, by and large, the problem of the “stick” system is initially in the incorrect organization of the entire Ministry of the Interior and the entire police. This is the first.

Second. The wrong approach is that they consider the number of disclosed and the ratio of disclosed by the number of registered ones. The consequence of this [becomes] underestimation of the number of registered and the overestimation of the number of disclosed. We see that police officers refuse to accept statements about a crime, and if they cannot but accept a crime statement, they try to reveal it as quickly as possible. The shortest way to disclose a crime is a blow to the jaw, in the groin, by a electric shocker. Because I found a face, received recognition - it means that he revealed.

- You can also receive quantitative indicators by survey of the population.

- Yes, there is a very good practice in the same United States of America - these are annual surveys of households. The unit is one family, and its members are interested in whether they were victims of any crimes over the past year. Если да, то выясняют, каких, где, как и при каких обстоятельствах, и таким образом они собирают параллельный скрининг ситуации с реальной ситуацией с преступностью, которая без собственно полицейской статистики тоже неприменима, потому что их надо сравнивать между собой. То есть, условно говоря, чтобы хотя бы понимать, сколько не доходит до учета. При этом причины того, что эти преступления не учитываются, они могут быть самыми разными, потому что люди могут не обращаться вообще: ну, разбили стекло в машине – чего полицию ждать, мне ехать надо. А когда вас спрашивают, вы об этом, скорее всего, расскажете. И тогда получается, что реальная картина преступности совершенно другая. И это очень важная информация для лиц, принимающих решения и вырабатывающих политику на определенной территории. Их же можно на определенной территории проводить и, соответственно, сравнивать между разными регионами, разными муниципалитетами, их можно сравнивать в исторической перспективе – а что было пять лет назад, а что сейчас, а какие виды новых преступлений, например, появились. Это дает ответ на то, где какие провалы у полицейской работы.

- Когда мы говорим о реформах, очевидно, есть люди, которым эти реформы не нравятся. Первая категория людей, которые теряют от реформы полиции, по крайней мере такой реформы, о которой вы говорите, – это те люди, которых уволят. У нас есть огромные подразделения, в том числе, например, Росгвардия, которые, видимо, будут так или иначе сокращаться, структурно изменяться. Наверное, в Центре по противодействию экстремизму многие люди потеряют работу. Что делать с людьми, которые теряют работу? Это тоже наши сограждане, как о них мы должны позаботиться, что мы им должны предложить?

– Пару слов про Росгвардию. Основная численность Росгвардии – это бывшие внутренние войска, и это срочники. То есть это восемнадцатилетние юноши, которые проходят срочную службу годичную, просто их направляют не в Министерство обороны, а в Росгвардию сейчас.

Вторая категория – это так называемая вневедомственная охрана. Вот уж какую функцию надо на следующий же день просто исключить и запретить, это вневедомственная охрана. Это, по большому счету, кормление для Росгвардии, это гигантские миллиарды рублей, которые платим мы с вами, россияне, когда сдаем на пульт вневедомственной охраны свою квартиру. То есть это уж точно бизнес, который должен оставаться для бизнесменов, и полиция туда лезть не должна. Поэтому если эти вот две вещи у Росгвардии убрать, то там останется только ОМОН и спецназ и СОБР, и это не такая большая численность.

Отвечаю на общий вопрос, что делать с уходящими. Ну, во-первых, конечно, должна быть продуманная программа, и просто так, как это почти всегда бывает в России, выкидывать на улицу людей, которые умеют обращаться с оружием и знают, как правильно ломать руки задержанным, точно не стоит. И обладают еще всякими оперативными навыками и доступом к некоторым секретным сведениям. Конечно, нужно думать о том, где и как их пристраивать. Здесь у нас возникает возможный линк, например, с реформой армии. Наверное, в XXI веке России уже нужно отказаться от призывного способа формирования армии, перевести на контракт, и пожалуйста: огромный массив бывших полицейских может уйти на контракт в армию и продолжать служить там. Могут быть отдельные программы переквалификации с учетом спроса на рынке труда. Это вещи, которые совершенно, на мой взгляд, доступны и реализуемы.

Большое число сотрудников полиции уже, скажем так, достигли возраста по выслуге лет ухода на пенсию, и они могут уйти на пенсию прямо сейчас, одним росчерком пера. Это тоже делается с сохранением пенсии и с возможным поиском своего нового будущего.

– Я полностью с вами согласен, что наверняка мы доживем до контрактной армии, и более того, скорее всего, это случится раньше, чем позже. И в этом смысле, опять-таки, существуют взаимодополняемости реформ: если в России будет контрактная армия, сразу будет понятно, где открывается вакансия для людей, которые сегодня служат в некоторых правоохранительных органах. Для того чтобы закончить наш разговор, я вам задам один простой вопрос. Как вы думаете, сколько времени займет проведение реформ до такой степени, чтобы наша полиция была, ну, скажем, на уровне среднеевропейском или, по крайней мере, средневосточноевропейском?

– Нужно иметь в виду, что система крайне адаптивная. Поэтому реформирование должно проходить динамично – это очень важно. То есть система не должна успевать подстраиваться под изменяющуюся среду. Второе: нужно посмотреть, как удалось Михаилу Саакашвили за пять лет реформировать МВД [Грузии]. Понятно, что у нас миллион, а у него всего 50 000 личный состав был, и туда входило гораздо больше того, что у нас распределено по другим ведомствам. Но ему хватило пяти лет, должно хватить и нам.

– Спасибо большое, Павел, за такую оптимистическую оценку. Я был в Грузии в прошлом году, я увидел гигантскую популярность реформы МВД в Грузии. За кого бы ни голосовали те или иные граждане, даже если они работают в правящей партии, которая является убежденным критиком политики Саакашвили, никто не высказывается в пользу отмены этой реформы. Это была очевидно самая популярная реформа, и очевидно, что если вы делаете правильные вещи, то эти реформы нельзя отменить, нельзя откатить назад, потому что у вас есть общественный консенсус, что эти реформы увенчались успехом.

Pavel Chikov: "Society really wants to change the Ministry of Internal Affairs"