There are other versions of this article as well, see Anna Stepanova's Removal from the Election (Theories).
Elections for deputies of the City Council were scheduled in Nizhny Novgorod for 13 September 2015. Anna Stepanova and a group of assistants collected the required number of signatures, while many "systemic" candidates did not collect signatures at all, or collected an absurdly small number of them, judging by the electoral commission's data published on the website of that state body.
The essence of the matter
Through a series of manipulations with the signature verification process and with its documentary record, the officials responsible at district electoral commission No. 30 — which is housed in the building of the Soviet District administration (1 Sovetskaya Square, office 203) and was formed out of its staff — decided not to allow Stepanova to stand in the elections. The court that heard Anna Stepanova's challenge to that decision at first instance upheld it. At the same time, neither the court's ruling nor the record of the hearing contains any examination of the violations of the signature verification procedure whatsoever.
How signatures for nominating a candidate are collected and verified
First the candidate and their assistants collect the signatures of voters in their district. Then the verification begins. At the initial stage the verification is carried out by the precinct electoral commission (OIK). As was reported at the start of this campaign, the OIKs do not carry out a selective check of individual signatures. They cross-check the entire list against the lists of voters registered in the "GAS-vybory" system. If problems are found by this method of checking, the OIK cannot rule that the signatures were collected improperly; it must send a request to the UFMS for the signatures to be verified. Anna Stepanova's campaign team, having gone through training at the PARNAS team's headquarters in Kostroma, even submitted the signatures for a separate handwriting examination. Along with drawing up the document, Vavilycheva told Stepanova about the results: "I can see that your signatures are very decent; I can see that you collected them yourselves." PARNAS, understanding in advance how the administrative resource works, paid particular attention to careful collection and preliminary verification of signatures.
OIKs are formed only for a given election, and they are separate from the TIKs, which operate on a permanent basis. Representatives of a TIK may be present when the OIK checks signatures, but they have no vote there.
From the results of the campaign across Nizhny Novgorod as a whole
|
Candidate Zhelezin, sequence number (s/n) 108, (OIK 13) — registered, no grounds for registration are required (???)
Candidate Nasledskov, s/n 111, (OIK 13) — registered, no grounds for registration are required (???) Candidate Klyuev, s/n 229, (OIK 26) — registered, grounds for registration 4 signatures (???) Candidate Andreenko, s/n 137, (OIK 16) — registered, no grounds for registration are required (???) Candidate Katysheva, s/n 120, (OIK 14) — registered, no grounds for registration are required (???) Candidate Monakhov, s/n 123, (OIK 14) — registered, no grounds for registration are required (???); three Monakhovs are registered in the constituency. One is a self-nominated candidate, another is a sitting deputy. Both were less fortunate than the first. Note that everyone I have written about is a self-nominated candidate. That is why they all have to collect signatures. |
|
What the violations in the signature check consisted of, according to Stepanova's campaign team
According to the testimony of the candidate and her authorised representatives, the following violations have documentary confirmation (see the photographs accompanying the article).
Anna Stepanova was invited, together with her authorised representatives, only on the 5th, when the objections about discrepancies between the lists and the "GAS-Vybory" system had to be announced at the session. And that is already the day the final protocol is drawn up. By law, 2 days are given so that the candidate can prepare replies, and after 2 days a commission is appointed that decides whether or not to admit the candidate. And right there, on the 5th, at the first session, she was handed a notice that such a commission would meet on the 7th.
On the 29th, when the signatures were submitted and Anna began taking photographs, the atmosphere was already tense. The OIK session began with shouting. The first to start shouting was the secretary of the TIK chairman — "stop filming immediately" — and she summoned the chairman of the TIK, deputy head of administration for social affairs Komrakov Andrey Alekseevich. He raised a shout demanding that the filming be stopped and the acceptance of documents halted. After that he introduced himself and ran off to "call the City Election Commission".
Members of the OIK began finding fault with people's handwriting — whether a person writes this or that letter that way or not. On the strength of just one disputably legible surname they issued a refusal — and exactly one signature was lacking. By law, in the room where the working group meets, the protocol is kept in that same room.
But Vavilycheva would take the signature sheets, run off to another room where she talked on the telephone — and come back again.
The whole commission decided that the signature which had prompted the objection was correct. After that Vavilycheva once again left the premises — to talk on the telephone. She comes back and says: "I have decided to re-vote." To questions about why she had earlier agreed, along with the other OIK members, that the signature was correct, she started shouting: "That's how I see it!"
At this moment Komrakov bursts in with security and demands that outsiders leave. Yet by law he is the only outsider at the meeting. Anna insisted on her position, and Komrakov's demand went unfulfilled.
Then the chairman of the OIK, Andreeva Tatyana Pavlovna, announced: "Vavilycheva must go immediately to the head of the Sovetsky district administration on work matters." Vavilycheva works in the housing allocation department. Strictly speaking, under the service regulations the head of the administration could not summon her — only her department head. Nevertheless, under this false pretext she was taken away for 40 minutes.
Anna Stepanova followed her to the head of the administration. When they were coming back, a district administration guard tried not to let Anna in. He was assured that under the law he was committing a criminally punishable act, and he let her through.
Vavilycheva resisted as best she could the collegial drawing up of the protocol at the meeting; she kept trying to leave.
At this time the TIK chairman Komrakov began forcing his way in (literally — pounding on the door with both fists) with security, and started demanding that Vavilycheva come out. She immediately asked to go "to the toilet".
The OIK premises are shared between two commissions. The first one is not OIK No. 30 but another one. Thus Komrakov, disrupting the work of both bodies, burst first into that OIK and then into No. 30. He shouted and threatened to call the police. Vavilycheva returned, after which they continued writing the protocol.
Mindful of the situation in Novosibirsk, where PARNAS representatives stayed overnight to prevent falsification of the protocol, the OIK members apparently decided to drag everything out until the end of the working day. And, under the guise of the working day being over, to finish work without having drawn up a protocol during the session. But out of fear that Anna Stepanova's representatives would not leave, a police detail was posted to insist that they go.
In the end, on the 5th Anna and her authorised representatives were thrown out of the session at the end of the working day, and the commission refused to write a protocol.
But that meant the mandatory 2-day period had to shift from the 7th to the 8th. Since the OIK asserts that it cannot draw up a protocol outside working hours, and the working day was over, the protocol must have been made on the next working day.
Traces in the police records
This needs checking — on what formal grounds the police detail was called to the Sovetsky district administration: who called it and what the official reason was.
The "troll and torpedoer" from the LDPR
Unable to cope with Stepanova's group, the OIK summoned a citizen with no powers whatsoever at the session — a member of the LDPR party, who individually advised the OIK participants on how to obstruct the work of Stepanova's authorised representatives.
The toilet as a professional "excuse"
Timofeeva Natalya Evgenyevna, who had voted, suddenly declares — "I did not vote" — "how so, you were there?" — "no, I had gone to the toilet at that moment".
The supremacy of ethics rather than of law
Chairman Andreeva, in a private conversation in the corridor with Stepanova: "if you hadn't made that scene about the filming back then, we wouldn't have obstructed you." That is to say, compliance with the law has no serious value; what matters is using some invented or provoked breach of ethics by an opponent as a pretext for the officials themselves to break the law.
"We have two more objections to you": 6 August
On the 6th at 13:00 Anna Stepanova came to Vavilycheva for the protocol. The first phrase was: "Anna, we have two more objections to you."
— but we had already begun drawing up the final protocol!
— well, during the night we decided to check you once more.
— and how could you check us during the night? You said the working day was over!? And you checked us in full anyway.
— Back then we checked you selectively.
And she produces a certificate "from the UFMS".
"But yesterday we didn't do anything with you, we were simply talking" — she did not confirm these words in the protocol, but they were said in a private conversation.
List of violations committed by OIK No. 30
- Since on the 5th they had already entered the format of drawing up the final protocol, no additional checks can take place. The OIK members themselves confirmed this — there are documents and witness statements about it.
- If the check on the following day is nevertheless to be called additional, then there are regulations for an additional check: no signature may be checked twice. An additional check covers only those signatures that were not checked earlier, which is confirmed by the sampling protocol. The sampling protocol must be drawn up on the results of the initial check and is signed by the candidate. The absence of this protocol shows that the check was not selective but complete.
- A repeat check is not provided for by law at all. There is not even such a concept. Signatures checked earlier are not checked anew.
- a UFMS certificate takes 3–5 days to produce. Yet in Stepanova's case it was supposedly produced at the UFMS overnight within two hours.
- Churov and the head of the UFMS approved the form (protocol No. 1 to the agreement between the UFMS and the CEC on elections).
At these elections the state demands that the candidate observe the signature sheets strictly, and that is precisely the source of the strictly regulated form — not only of the text part of the certificate, but of the tabular part as well. And if such a certificate is invalid, then all the objections against Anna Stepanova are just as certainly invalid.
The OIK members were required to state in the text the name of the elections for which they were requesting information, the organisation, the deadline for fulfilling the request, and the grounds for fulfilling the request.
At the bottom of the document there is a line — for stating exactly which materials were submitted and in what quantity, for strict return. After that comes the tabular form. It consists of fixed, approved columns.
OIK No. 30 of the Sovetsky district ignored the tabular form altogether — thus there is no folder, sheet or line number for what they are checking. Citizenship is not stated, although the form makes it mandatory.
Most of the columns are filled in by the OIK — as they see them — and the last two are filled in by the UFMS. Meanwhile the OIK wrote its own table, stating in it both the results of the check and what they consider to be incorrect.
Violations by the UFMS, or by a specialist who passed off their own document as a UFMS certificate
The UFMS retyped the table anew and sent it back in its own format. That is not permitted. When the UFMS sent the data, they made a mistake: the fields in which a person's details match the details in the signatures for the candidate they did not fill in; they entered only what does not match. Such results cannot be considered a valid document, because the certificate ends up drawn up fundamentally incorrectly. Beneath the table, moreover, the signature of an official and its transcript are supposed to appear — there are none at all. The table is empty and certified by no one.
What it bears is not a seal but a little round stamp for folders — a folder stamp.
Curiously, it is unclear whether Timofeeva Natalya Evgenyevna is still on the UFMS staff, but she now works in the Sovetsky district administration. It is likely that she kept the UFMS folder stamp when she became an employee of the administration's legal department.
Anna Stepanova requested both the requests and the replies to them.
For the first one (on the 4th) the OIK provided only the request form, but not the reply form (there should be both).
And on the 6th the OIK issued a UFMS form dated 2014 (!).
In addition to the "disputably legible" one, two more signatures were presented — these come from the signature sheet Anna collected herself and from her assistant's sheet. The objections concerned figures. On Anna's sheet a 5 had simply been written over into a 6. And on the assistant's sheet flat 101 had been altered to flat 104.
Multiple breaches of the session regulations by the OIK
The OIK de facto denied the candidate everything that could work in her favour, such as: fundamentally incorrect signature-check forms, disregard of arguments, and ambiguity interpreted against the candidate.
On the 6th Anna Stepanova received the protocol, and by law the session should have been held on the 8th. She was telephoned from the OIK and offered to hold it on the 7th, less than twenty-four hours later. Thus no time was given to prepare objections. This was proposed over the telephone, and the receiver was hung up at once. On the 7th Stepanova went there with her objections, and at that very moment, it turned out, the commission session was already under way.
Stepanova: "you are breaking the law, the session must be held two days later." Andreeva: "well, we know, yes, we are going ahead with the violation."
At the commission: "Stepanova behaved badly on the 5th", she has such-and-such objections against her. No one mentioned the candidate's point of view and arguments. Everyone except our chairman voted to deprive her. And in this way she was struck off the register.
Other violations by OIK staff
Anna Stepanova sent an official letter stating that she wished to be present at the checking of signatures: both her own and those of other candidates. But the OIK representatives never once invited her to such a check. The head of the working group is the OIK secretary Vavilycheva Vera Vladimirovna. It was among her duties to give notice, but she ignored this official obligation.
Bloggers' interview with the district election commission staff
Realising that the situation around the commission's work had become more than controversial and conflict-prone, Nizhny Novgorod bloggers and public figures - Mikhail Iosilevich, Alexey Podnebesny, Alexander Sudakov and Pyotr Kuznetsov - immediately gathered at District Election Commission No. 30 to put their questions and hear the answers of the commission members.
- We wanted to ask what happened in your district with the candidate by the name of Stepanova - she was not allowed to run. The candidate states that there were numerous violations, including corrections made to her signature sheets after they had already been handed in to your commission. How could that happen?
- Vavilycheva. On that question we have a court ruling. There was a trial. The Sovetsky court. She was refused. Now she has filed an appeal with the regional court. We are waiting for the decision.
- And can you comment somehow on the corrections?
- There were no corrections of any kind in her case. All the data, all the signature sheets were sent to "GAS-Vybor". First they were partially checked. She had 14 violations. Then they were checked once more… She behaved very improperly.
- What did the impropriety consist of?
- She would not let us out of the office. She demanded that we write it "right this minute".
- And you needed to leave?
- I needed to leave, to write the record. She would not let me.
- It was reported that your actions were directed by a certain Komrakov…
- No. He did not direct our actions. He was there as a representative. I work in the administration, and he is the deputy head of the administration. Because she was closing the door, not letting anyone out.
- And how do you comment on the situation that in other districts self-nominated candidates got through with only four signatures, or with no signatures at all - and this is stated outright in an official document, although it is a clear violation. Yet in Stepanova's case some errors suddenly turned up in exactly the number of signatures that made the crucial difference.
- We do not know what goes on at other precincts or why. But on this question, specifically on Stepanova - there was a court ruling. So please, you are welcome to read it.
- This is not the first time you have worked on elections, you also worked four years ago in a district commission, at the previous elections
- Yes
- And you were directed by…
- The chair of the commission
- And the head of the administration?
- He did not direct anything. What kind of nonsense is that? From her words?
- Yakimov. She caused a scene.
- Vavilycheva. I will call the chair of the commission for you.
- Yakimov. I work in the commission…
- And everyone saw all that?
- No, I did not see it. I was not present, but I heard about it.
- And what is Komrakov - a specialist in putting down scenes? That is not his remit. He had no right to be present at a meeting of the district election commission, as I understand it?
- He did… I cannot say. And what is the purpose of your visit?
- We are doing a journalistic investigation. And we came to learn your point of view.
- The chair. Please show your credentials, your accreditation.
- Accreditation where?
- As mass media.
- And if we have simply come as citizens.
- As citizens, please submit a written application. We will answer you in due time.
- You are the administration, you are at work.
- We are not the administration, we are an election commission.
- These are your reception hours.
- We have a person here at the reception. I have told you.
- You do not want to talk to us?
- I am telling you once again: "If you have any questions - write them down, and we will answer you".
- And right now you do not want to talk to us?
- There is a person here who handles this, who is on duty today - you can talk to him.
Write an application, and we will set it all out for you. Because we have a court ruling, an official one. There were handwriting experts there, everyone examined it. All of that was in court. She has now filed an appeal with the regional court. We are waiting for the decision. To the Investigative Committee. So the Investigative Committee is handling it. Everything is in progress.
- Yakimov. Leave them and we will answer.
- Curious, you carry out administrative activity. It is paid for with tax money and consists in serving citizens. That means both working with documents and, above all, receiving citizens and dealing with them. So what kind of regulation says that citizens need not be received, but that their requests must be accepted in writing.
- I am not the chair, I cannot answer.
- And who else is on the commission? Maybe someone else is on it - because you are not on the lists either.
- 12 people.
- The room is fairly small, do all of them take part in the meeting?
- Yes... No, someone may be absent.
- Which of them was present at the meeting…
- Why do you need this? Ask for a copy of the record…
- We want to question everyone.
- Smolkina Ekaterina Vasilyevna. Your credentials.
- We are citizens. And who are you?
- I am a member of the district election commission.
- Were you present at the meeting at which it was learned that three of candidate Stepanova's signatures turned out to be invalid?
Vavilycheva told us that during that meeting Stepanova behaved improperly, would not let her leave the office. What did that impropriety consist of?
- There was a scandal. On Stepanova's part.
- And why, in your view, did the scandal arise?
- Yakimov. Let us start from the very beginning. Three signatures were declared invalid. Who declared them so? Naturally, not the commission. But the examination. If you have questions about the examination - address them to the examiners.
- Stepanova said she suspects that the signatures were altered after being handed in to the district election commission. Two signatures. And we came to find out.
- Smolkina. Was she hinting that the commission removed her "without justification"?
- She did not merely hint, she has already sent a statement to the Investigative Committee.
- She wrote to the court. The court sided with us.
- You are currently under suspicion of committing a criminal offence. Not you personally, but whoever may have forged those signatures. Let us talk about whether that could have happened in principle.
- Yakimov. Hypothetically? Why should we talk about the hypothetical if there is a court order?
- But the court did not consider the question of the signatures being forged at all, did it?
- Smolkina. The court considered the lawfulness of our refusal.
- As I understand it, the grounds for the appeal were in particular that the court ignored a substantial part of the arguments that made up the essence of the claim.
- Yakimov. A court decision was reached, and the court issued a ruling that the commission's decision was lawful.
- Has the court decision entered into legal force? Or is it being appealed now?
- Smolkina. Anna Eduardovna first made a scene here, then turned to the bloggers. For some reason she did not turn to the media. She came here with cameras, now she has turned to the bloggers in order to stir up the internet community. This is absolutely groundless.
- You said she made a scene, but what did the scandal consist of?
- Yakimov. When the commission meeting was over, she stood across the doorway.
- Smolkina. She stood across the doorway, would not let anyone out.
- Until what?
- Yakimov. Until you reinstate me.
- So she demanded to be reinstated? Or did she demand that some document be issued which they were obliged to give her?
- Smolkina. She was shouting. It was hard to understand.
- So you did not understand her demands?
- Yakimov. It was simply hysterics.
- And what did the hysterics consist of?
- Smolkina. It is hard to say what exactly. Can you imagine a scandal?
- And was it the fact that she made a scandal that led to her removal from the election?
- I will read your blog. Heaven forbid you distort my words.
- You can even write it down. Here, I am leaving you the questions in writing. And no one will twist your words. Then no one will be able to twist anything.
- She was not removed because of the scandal. And she made the scandal afterwards.
- After… After what?
- After she was told that her candidacy was being withdrawn.
- So you say that she would not let people out?
- When she was informed, she had that kind of reaction.
- And how could she be refused if the paper had not yet been drawn up?
- She was notified
- Orally?
- She was notified orally, and she was given a document stating that we were inviting her to the commission meeting.
- So she was given a document, and that did not satisfy her?
- Stating that we were inviting her to the meeting.
- An invitation was issued?
- Yes. She was notified orally.
- Yakimov. A notification, not an invitation. Invitations are sent out.
- Smolkina. A notification.
- A notification of what?
- That she was being invited to the commission.
- So "she is being invited to the commission". And she wanted to receive something else?
- I would like to see your press credentials.
She was refused, she left. Why do you keep repeating the question.
- The question is about the facts. Was there a moment of refusal if, as you say, she was preventing people from leaving? How is a commission decision drawn up? Was it announced orally?
- Smolkina. Later… she was given the record.
- That was later.
- At the meeting. They came and notified her. By law, two days are given for appeal.
- And when was she given the record of the commission meeting?
- She has the record of the commission meeting in her hands.
- No, when was she given it?
- When we had the meeting, she was first given a notification that she was being invited to a meeting of the commission. Which took place two days later. And at the meeting of the district election commission she was given the record of the meeting in the presence of all our members.
- So it turns out that she made a scandal demanding that this record be issued not in two days but immediately? Is that how it was?
- No, there was some other situation there.
They asked… I do not remember… then they came again afterwards…
- Yakimov. Katya, let us wrap this up.
- Smolkina. But not the record. She has the record in her hands.
- Yakimov. Katya. Katya. Let us stop. Let us stop. You are writing the questions down?
- Yes.
- We will answer.
- It is just that, you see, questions come up in the course of talking, for us. The record. We did not know about it.
- Smolkina. You are twisting things. we did not remove her because of the scandal. that is not how it was.
- Tell us how it was.
- On the signature sheets a request is made to the UFMS. All the data are verified. We do not take it out of thin air.
- And you are certain you were not present at that meeting?
- Yakimov. What am I supposed to say, "I swear on my mother"? Do you not understand Russian?
- I do.
- I have already said, repeatedly, that I was not at that meeting.
- I have information that you were somewhere nearby. Well, all right. We intend to question as many people as possible who were present.
- That is the right thing to do.
- And do you know Komrakov? Was he present too? And did he give instructions, direct the commission's actions?
- Smolkina. Komrakov was present. Do you understand what was going on there?
- No. You were there, I was not.
- Shouting, yelling and an absolutely complete circus.
- A circus.
- A complete circus. No one could calm the person down. It was impossible to explain anything. It was impossible even to talk.
- Yakimov. The police were called.
- Smolkina. Yes, the police were there, I think.
- And who called them? Were there any grounds?
- The grounds were that very situation. A person in the district administration shouting at an election commission. A candidate for deputy. Do you think that is normal?
- No. That is exactly what we are trying to sort out.
- Who else heard the scandal?
- I think everyone.
- Who else can confirm this?
- Those who were present. Write down the question.
- And just like that - you cannot answer? Do you need to consult with them? To work out a common line?
- No. And why do you keep repeating questions.
- I asked: "who else can confirm it"?
- She was shouting: "you have no right!"
- Do you have a list of the people who were present?
- No. And who was present? You are not saying either. How many people were present? Right now, without additional consultations, you cannot answer?
- No. I do not remember, I cannot even count them.
- Did Vavilycheva hear ?
- The whole second floor heard.
- And Vavilycheva heard? Did Tikhonova hear?
- You can question someone out in the street, the window here is always open. They surely heard.
- You have not answered me?
- Was the candidate issued a record on that day, or any documents at all?
- She was issued a notification.
- And what was the result of the meeting on the fifth?
- She was issued a notification of the meeting. Two days later, by law, they may appeal.
- They do not know the decision yet. Did you tell her that decision orally?
- When a notification is issued, they are informed.
- Of the decision?
- When the notification is handed over, they are told: "come in…
- "Come in and we will announce the decision to you" - did I understand correctly?
- Not correctly. It was announced orally, and a notification was issued. Within two days they have the right by law to appeal it.
- And the oral form did not satisfy her?
- No, everything satisfied her.
- Then what was the point of the scandal?
- What did not satisfy her was that she was refused. The decision did not satisfy her.
- And was there a decision at all?
- Of course there was.
- An oral one?
- At the commission meeting everything was issued to her, against her signature.
- On the fifth? So it turns out she made the scandal on the fifth.
- When the notification was being issued…
- Yakimov. On the sixth, maybe.
- Smolkina. On the sixth, on Friday, I think.
- The sixth or the seventh. And the scandal was on the fifth?
- I cannot talk like this.
- Well, not on the same day?
- No, not on the same day.
- Excellent. So the decision was announced to her orally? And was not issued in writing?
- All the documents were issued in writing…
- Later?
- At the commission meeting. The district election commission. Against signature. There is a decision, a record of the meeting.
- And it was announced orally on the fifth?
- She was notified. I do not know by what means, but in fact she was notified.
- But you were present?
- I was already present when the post-mortem began. Half the floor gathered here. Komrakov among them.
- But it turns out that no one can name the grounds for the scandal?
- The grounds for the scandal were the refusal of the district election commission.
- There had not been one yet, a refusal?
- She was notified that at the commission meeting she would be given the record and the decision.
- So it turns out she did not know about any refusal? According to our information the scandal arose because she was refused the record of the commission meeting.
- Yakimov. But it did not exist yet.
- It did not exist yet?
- Smolkina. The meeting had not taken place yet, it had not been held.
- Then what was it? They just gathered?
- Yakimov. The question simply stood of the candidate's participation in the election, or non-participation of the candidate in the election.
- Presumably this question ought to be finalised by some document?
- Smolkina. Of course! It is all documented.
- Yakimov. May I speak. This question is decided collegially, this question is decided at a session of the election commission. The election commission is scheduled for some date, and two days before that date a notification is issued, an invitation for the candidate, to the session of the commission. Where the question of your list will be decided, where the number of signatures is insufficient. All of this is clear.
- So she was invited simply to receive a notification, and she started making a scene?
- That you are invited to a session of the commission at which the question of your further… will be decided
- Smolkina. It was stated that we would be raising the question of refusal.
- On the fifth no sessions took place?
- Yakimov. No, no.
- Smolkina. No. She was simply told that the question of refusal would be on the agenda.
- Right.
- From there it depends on how the members of the commission vote.
- And on the fifth there was no vote at all?
- No, there was no SESSION.
- Yakimov. There was not, there was not. We were handing out the notification.
- Smolkina. It was simply DUTY HOURS.
- Then why was it decided to refuse her on the fifth?
- Yakimov. Nothing of the sort, there was no refusal.
- Smolkina. She was not refused. She was simply told that the question of refusal would be put. At a session of the commission. And from there it depends on how the commission votes.
- Then why did she start making a scene?
- Because she was told that the question of refusal would be put.
- So a person comes in, that person has not been refused. And out of the blue she starts shouting obscenities at you?
- I am laying out a logical chain for you.
I am a candidate, I want to become a deputy. I come, I submit my documents. I want to become a candidate for deputy, I want my name to be on the ballots and so on. And I come, and they tell me: «we are refusing you». And I am not used to being refused.
- Right.
- I want it.
- Right.
- I start shouting.
- And shouting what? «Register me immediately!» or what? «Hold the session two days earlier!»?
- «These are my rights!» - and shouting.
- And what rights are those?
- Yakimov. Well, ask her.
- So you do not know? You say that she blocked the door, would not let you out. So what was the purpose of this blocking? So that you would issue her some document? She came in and just: «make me a candidate!», yes? That does not sound very logical.
- Smolkina. Let us not exaggerate. You are turning my words inside out. I understand that you came here for Stepanova. For Anna Eduardovna. I understand that perfectly well. That your goal is - «the district commission is a shambles, good people are being removed».
- And the facts? And what is your own point of view?
- She has all the documents in hand.
- Yakimov. She had her own point of view, she stated her point of view at the session of the commission.
- And everything was honest.
- There was one question there — on removal from the election. Who is in favour, who is against — that is all.
- Smolkina. Excuse me, there have been cases where even dead people were written into signature sheets.
- And what was wrong in Stepanova's case?
- One would have to look. I do not remember what. I cannot remember for every single candidate.
- And is this the only scandalous story?
- Yes. All the rest, calmly, agree. That is all.
- I see. And how many other candidates have you refused?
- Yakimov. Well, you have seen it on the site.
- Smolkina. I am not the secretary, I do not keep track of how many people we have registered.
- Was anyone else refused?
- Yes.
- And they all took it calmly, did not demand anything?
- They asked for explanations: «why, how». Quietly, peacefully, calmly.
- In Stepanova's case — do you still consider your refusal valid? And lawful?
- Yes.
- Because she was two signatures short there?
- Not two, more than that.
- How many?
- Well, let us say at least two. And what, do you think that is normal? There is a law under which a person is let through who has collected, I think, 137 signatures. She does not have them.
- Because some of her signatures were rejected?
- Yakimov. Yes.
- Were declared invalid?
- Smolkina. All of that is confirmed.
- Yakimov. The signature sheet is handed over for checking, to the UFMS.
- Smolkina. It is considered invalid.
- Yakimov. The UFMS checks that the surname, the registered address and the passport data match. And says: it really is so, or it is not.
- Smolkina. There is an official reply from the UFMS.
- And were you satisfied with the reply from the UFMS? Did you see it?
- Smolkina. Well naturally, I saw it.
- Yakimov. And what does that mean - «satisfied — not satisfied»? Are you satisfied with the multiplication table?
- That is not the point.
- Then what is?
- The form there is very strict. How it must be drawn up.
- Smolkina. They write — the registered address matches, the passport data matches — and send us a reply.
- And how does the UFMS send it to you? By post? And was this reply also sent by post?
- No, it came by courier. By courier.
- Yakimov. What do you need these questions for? «Who? Where? At what time?»
- Smolkina. By courier.
- Yakimov. «How long did he run, this courier?».
- You do not want to answer?
- And what are these questions for? These questions have nothing to do with the matter! I am just as much a member of the election commission, do understand. You are talking to me, and yet you are tormenting her, the young woman.
- If she does not want to answer, she will not. But she does want to answer.
- She is not answering.
- And why are you putting pressure on her?
- I ask you… Am I putting pressure on you?
- Smolkina. No [laughs].
- I will ask the question all the same. If you like, do not answer.
- Go ahead, go ahead.
- There is information that this UFMS reply appeared unexpectedly, overnight. And was not sent by any post. And there is not a single UFMS stamp on it. Can you comment on that somehow? Did you see this reply?
- Yakimov. I can comment.
- Wait. I asked her.
- Smolkina. You can go to Vera Vladimirovna, and she will provide it to you upon request.
- Yakimov. And who said that?
- Smolkina. Everything there is in order.
- Yakimov. Wait. Wait. And first of all, who said that?
- So you saw it — everything is in order?
- Who said that there are no signatures, no UFMS stamps? Who said that? Where does such information come from?
- We have such information.
- Then write: «They say — a third party — that the UFMS record arrived without a signature and a stamp». Only write it that way - «they say». Yes. They say — at the bazaar.
- And there is more information…
- Smolkina. You can go to Vera Vladimirovna and talk with her on this subject.
- Yakimov. This is some sort of pointless conversation altogether. Do you not find?
- Very much to the point.
- Pointless.
- About specific documents. From specific people. Who expressed their wish to see this candidate in the election.
- Then write: «we request that the record be provided»… I am telling you once again — the person was collecting signatures. She decided that these signatures were enough.
- Three signatures were rejected there.
- It does not matter. To collect 147 signatures. This list is sent to the UFMS for checking. The UFMS rejected several signatures.
- Did you see this reply?
- No, I did not. The chairman of the commission reads it out.
- And you yourself do not see it?
- What for? What, do I not trust the chairman of the commission?
- I am simply asking.
- The chairman of the commission reads it out. I did not see it. I did not check it.
- And you were not interested?
- And I do not find it obligatory to look at the signatures and the stamps.
- And you were not even curious, did not take it just to have a look?
- I do not find it necessary.
- I see. And there is no interest?
- We are not bloggers. «This is not a church — you will not be deceived». «This is not a blog — you will not be deceived» — I would put it more precisely that way.
- I see.
- In the end fewer signatures were collected than the required 147. I do not know — by one vote, by two, by three…
- You consider it absolutely unimportant — by how many?
- It does not matter how many: a little bit is missing. It is missing, under the law.
- Our very first question was — according to candidate Stepanova, changes were made to the signature sheets after they had been handed in to the OIK. And precisely those signatures that fell short — they, according to her, were altered. She has copies of these sheets in their original form, and in the form they turned out to be in after being handed in. The figures there have been altered.
- Those are copies.
- Smolkina. Let us write an application. You set out all the questions that interest you. And note the question regarding the UFMS.
- All right.
- Write it — and we will answer you.
- Stepanova asserts that she handed in the required number of signatures. Then several of them were forged, they were declared invalid, the reply came back saying that things did not match there. Literally, one digit was altered in each passport there. According to Stepanova.
- Yakimov. Do you think anyone in the commission needs that?
- Well, the question is being asked.
- That is what she says.
- She does.
- Well, let her say it.
- It has not been proven. Although there is a complaint to the Investigative Committee. They will surely come too, and question you. You will say something as well. I am interested in your opinion: «this could never happen, Stepanova is lying», or «couriers could have interfered, corrected something», or «aliens could have flown in and corrected the ballots», or «the UFMS corrected something itself». Which of the listed options — or your own version — seems more realistic to you? What happened?
- That could not have happened.
- So it is all in the candidate's imagination?
- Correct.
- And the fact that exactly that number of signatures fell short — that causes no unease at all?
- She is not the only one. People fall short by 3, 4, 5, 7 signatures.
- So it is a frequent situation — everyone falls short, everyone is removed?
- Not everyone! But those who fall short — they are removed. And the situation is exactly the same. I consider that correct. Because 147 signatures is not such a large number of signatures. Three printed sheets. The candidate could have checked and looked through them herself, at the very least.
- But the commission did check the signatures beforehand, did it not?
- And how?
- There were several sessions of the commission, after all.
- How can the commission check signatures?
- But the entire content of the commission session consisted of discussing how it is spelled - «Ignashev» or «Linashev». All that time, for a very long while.
- The commission takes the decision. And the checking — there is a service that deals with that. For instance, the UFMS.
- The commission checks nothing?
- And how can it check? Can you check a signature?
- I am simply asking.
- The commission is made up of people just like everyone else. Like you. Here I am — a member of the commission. I know nothing about signatures or about addresses. I have no card index, no databases.
- So you rely only on the replies of the UFMS?
- Naturally. On official replies.
- And regarding the signatures being illegible — were those complaints also from the UFMS? Or are those complaints from the commission?
- From the UFMS.
- And do you send them all the signatures? The signature sheets? All of them?
- No, in parts. What do you think? What sort of question are you asking?
- Perhaps you send only the most suspicious ones?
- That is probably a rhetorical question, yes?
- Perhaps you send only those that raised questions?
- There are regulations, in which all of them are specified.
- You send all of them?
- All of them.
- And then they say «these ones are fine, and these ones are not fine»? The UFMS?
- Yes.
- In the form of a certificate? Which you did not look at?
- I do not know whether it is called a certificate, or…
- And you did not look at it?
- I do not know what the document is called. No, I did not look at it.
- A document came to you, and you did not look at it? It was read out to you…
- It came to the election commission. The head of the commission is the chairman of the commission.
- But you are part of the commission. So in effect it came to you.
- I have no grounds to distrust my chairman. No grounds.
- Why?
- Because I just do not.
- Have you known her long?
- It does not matter.
- What do you mean «it does not matter»?
- Do you, say, trust Vladimir Vladimirovich, or not?
- I do not trust him in the slightest.
- Well, there are people who trust him and who have known him only recently.
- Probably. But in general I trust only those whom I have known for a very long time. And whom there are grounds to trust. Are you connected with him in some way?
- I have no grounds, no grounds. She has never deceived me. That is, I have no grounds to distrust her.
- Are you connected with her in some way?
- By what? By bonds?
- By friendship…
- No, I am not.
- You work together. Then what is the commission for? There could just be a chairman alone.
- The decision is taken collegially, not by the chairman of the commission. Not by the chairman of the commission, but by all the members.
- On what basis is the decision taken? It turns out you did not see the signatures.
- Which signatures?
- Did you look at the signatures?
- No, of course not.
- But you took the decision?
- It was not I who took the decision.
- Collegially.
- The decision that the signatures are invalid was taken by the UFMS. Not by me. And not by you, and you would not have been able to take that decision either. There is an official service that bears responsibility for that. Which checks that the surname, the registered address and the passport data match. I have no database, and you surely do not have one either. A complete database.
- That is not the point — it turns out you do not check at all whether the paper came from the UFMS. Perhaps it was substituted? Perhaps it does not meet any parameters?
- I say again — I have no grounds to distrust the chairman.
- I understand. And you are a member of the commission?
- I am a member of the commission.
- And you did not look at the signatures?
- I did not.
- You did not look at the UFMS certificate?
- I heard it.
- You heard it.
- Yes.
- On what basis did you take the decision — to register, or not to register?
- On the basis of the data provided by the chairman.
- And was there any other data?
- There was not.
- So simply a UFMS certificate, and in effect you take the decision on its basis? Yes or no?
- That the candidate has an insufficient number of collected signatures.
- And did anyone on the commission vote against the decision to refuse Stepanova?
- Yes.
- And if you say that everything happens solely on the basis of the specialised conclusion of the UFMS, then on what basis can they disagree with the UFMS — those who vote to keep Stepanova?
- Well, that is the procedure. As I am telling you.
- So it turns out that they do not agree with this certificate anyway?
- Who are «they»?
- Those who voted against removing the candidate.
- Perhaps they had some other reasons. I do not know. Whether they disagreed with the certificate, or with something else. I agreed with everything. I voted for removal.
- A question about the vote. What is the point of this vote, if the whole decision rests exclusively on the competent decision of the UFMS on the question of whether the data matches the registered address? It turns out that there is a certificate, but there is no way at all to challenge it?
- There is a law. Such is the law. The law is unjust, but it is the law. That is what there is.
- «The law is harsh, but it is the law». Not «unjust».
- «The law is unjust, but it is the law».
- Do you consider our laws unjust?
- It was not I who said that, it was said back in Ancient Rome.
- There it is «The law is harsh, but it is the law».
- And I said «unjust».
- So it turns out that the laws in Russia are unjust?
- No, I did not say that.
- It seems to me you want to start a Maidan here?
- Did I say that?
- You said about the laws: «they are unjust».
- Where? Did I say «in Russia»?
- Where do we live? In America?
- Where do you live? I do not know where you live, I do not live with you. And you do not know where I live.
- We, at least, introduced ourselves - «we are citizens». So we live in Russia.
- You didn't say that. “We're bloggers” — that's what you said. You didn't say you were citizens of Russia.
- We confirm to you that we are citizens of Russia.
- Good for you.
- And you?
- Me too.
- Then we're talking about the same body of legislation.
- No, not the same. I didn't say “in Russia”.
- All right. We've strayed from the subject. We won't photograph the statement that has been drawn up. We hope no changes will be made to it.
Thank you.
- Smolkina. All the best to you.
- Good luck.
- Yakimov. And what is she to you?
- Smolkina. I've become curious to read your blog. On Facebook, right?
- Yakimov. And what are you to her, guys?
- We're distant relatives of hers. We're simply her voters. Citizens.
- Where do you live? In her district?
- Almost.
Do you understand that the deputies of the City Duma then elect the head of the city? And his decisions concern everyone.
- Yes.
- When inconvenient candidates aren't allowed into the elections — that concerns everyone. That's what you were asking about, wasn't it? Does it concern us? I'm answering you.
- Why isn't he being allowed? He is being allowed. The person didn't collect a certain number, as regulated by law.
- We're trying to get to the bottom of it.
How the court acted
Understanding that the court might say “the copies are not properly certified”, Anna Stepanova invited experts to the hearing. The district election commission, for its part, invited a police major as its expert. The parties questioned the experts about the disputed reading of the surname Ignashev and about the two corrected figures. Anna Stepanova's authorised representatives, together with the authors of the signatures, produced a mass of handwriting samples for verification.
For instance, the author of a signature says: you see, I write it this way everywhere. The handwriting has been shown, so why do you insistently read the “И” as “Л”?
When they began examining the forged figures, photocopies were submitted to the court. And on those photocopies the forged figures came out as if they were real: the strokes added to the digits later disappeared in copying.
At the hearing all the facts were presented to judge Svetlana Sergeyevna Tolmacheva. The judge questioned the experts.
Both experts acknowledged during the hearing that all three inscriptions read ambiguously. Anna Stepanova proposed that the invited expert be allowed to carry out an examination that would have taken 2 hours and would thus have established the fact of technical interference and whether it had altered the original content of the information. The judge refused.
In his closing statement the prosecutor said the following: “the inscriptions read ambiguously, therefore I propose to reject Stepanova's claim”.
Were there grounds for the court's refusal?
The regional election commission had earlier held a seminar for election commissions of every level. Goreva, the chief theoretician of the regional commission, ran that seminar. She said: all ambiguities are interpreted in the candidate's favour. Meanwhile, the court interpreted precisely that ambiguity against the candidate. And thereby against the residents who had voted for her.
Stepanova described all the violations in court, asking that her removal from the elections be declared invalid. Judge Tolmacheva ruled — to reject the claim, citing the ambiguous signatures, and in no way addressing or reflecting in her decision all the other violations.
2 September. The court decision and the bloggers' conversation at OIK No.30
The hearing of Anna Stepanova's appeal against the decision to remove her from the elections was scheduled for 11.00 on 2 September. As Anna told us in the middle of the day, the court dismissed her appeal without any detailed reasoning for the refusal.
At 16.00 the bloggers came to OIK No.30 to collect the chairwoman's written answer to their enquiry. The chairwoman herself and the other members of the commission met earlier were absent from their workplace for the whole visit — about 30 minutes. The bloggers' view of the situation was heard by one more member of OIK No.30, not met before and, by his own account, not present at the sessions involving Anna.
- Iosilevich. We asked: “who could have made the changes which, according to Stepanova, were made to the ballots?” Stepanova brought in an expert who showed that yes, changes and discrepancies had been made.
- Kuznetsov. There are corrections in two digits of the passport data: 1 into 4 and 5 into 6.
- Iosilevich. On that side all the information is available. On this side we get no information — which means that in our investigation we'll adopt the version that the district election commission is hiding something. Of course, we're not going to tear it out by force. We're asking.
Stepanova has lost the election. Even if she's reinstated by a court, she won't run any campaign in three days. She's finished. The question is — what did the people of Nizhny Novgorod gain?
- Kuznetsov. The deputies elect the mayor. And the mayor will be selling off the parks, and so on.
- Iosilevich. He will. What did Andreeva gain? She probably lives somewhere in the district herself. She also goes walking in the park. And tomorrow they'll stick a skyscraper in there. That's what we're making a… report about.
- Kuznetsov. We've long been investigating subjects that surface on the internet. And we seize on those that look both promotable and valuable to the public.
- Iosilevich. Anna Stepanova is the only candidate from “Parnas” in Nizhny Novgorod. All the “Parnas” candidates in Novosibirsk and everywhere except Kostroma were refused registration.
- Kuznetsov. And Kostroma is a rather peculiar region. There's no overpopulation there, no pressure from migrants, no urge to scramble for a career. It's like the islands of Polynesia — no grounds for any kind of social conflict.
- Iosilevich. It was very interesting there. First the commission voted unanimously not to allow “Parnas” into the elections. Then someone called from the Kremlin, and the commission just as unanimously decided to register “Parnas”.
- Kuznetsov. After all, people work in the commission, and in other quasi-state posts. They have some sense of self-respect. In theory. Their salaries aren't all that big. You'd think — what draws them in? We investigated the story of Limarenko's son (the “Atomenergoproekt” one): at the wheel, he collided with a young woman on Ilyinskaya Street, at the turn towards the Pokhvalinsky descent. A traffic officer wrote up a report for her. She drives off. And the next day she's told “you know, we need to summon you” — “why?” — “to hand you the report” — “how can that be, I already have a report?”. It turned out the traffic officer had written a new one.
And we started digging into the story. Material came out in several newspapers. And that traffic officer was dismissed. He says: “I got a call and they said ‘do you know who is calling you?’ And they name an influential person.” And to him, the traffic officer, as a result of this whole story, people say: “Here you are, some person. You have a salary, not a very big one. You have a certain sense of self-respect. In theory. When some schemer simply calls you and says ‘you do understand where this call is coming from’ — it could be anyone. Maybe the person is bluffing. And you're immediately ready to commit forgery in office, anything at all” — “my superiors threatened that I wouldn't be promoted” — “and in the end you're simply dismissed.
There are official and professional duties, after all, and they have to be observed… any self-respecting specialist must observe them, regardless of what his boss tells him. Not to mention some outside ‘authorities’, and still less ‘stars’. Say people here like to play at homespun folksiness, at native Russianness. Fine. Take an old-time Nizhny Novgorod merchant. What if his boy in his expensive car started crashing into a girl in a cheap car, and then tried to pin the blame on her after the fact because he hadn't taken out insurance? The merchant would have given him money, but at the same time would have smashed the lad's face in — for the disgrace.
He would simply have behaved like a normal social leader. And what we have is slimy behaviour at the level of leadership. And executors ready for anything, ‘if they get a call’, or if the bosses insist. It's not clear, if there's even a shred of self-respect, why play at that kind of career at all. ‘Like an eel, I crawl along the bottom and believe that somewhere there are great powers who will call me and say: forge the ballots’. One could say ‘I can't — I have regulations. I have already acted’. As in this case — there's a chairwoman. What of it — is her salary enormous? Or will they find someone for the post right away? ‘And who exactly will you find?’ You'd think the person isn't losing all that much. The level of servility is astonishing, when ‘I got a call from the Kremlin itself’.
Our real motive is to work out — where are the real people and the real professionals? Or is this a game of some sort of tin soldiers?
- Do you write stories and make money on them?
- Kuznetsov. We earn on the advertising market, on commercial information. And these investigations are more for self-satisfaction.
- I thought newspapers bought them.
- Look at the state the newspapers are in now.
- Iosilevich. Few people need this. But there is a certain layer. It will be in demand later on. When Putin dies. How old is he now? 63?
- Kuznetsov. He'll probably hang on to 130, with all that chemistry.
- Iosilevich. (doubtfully) Uh-huh.
- Kuznetsov. After that it will all start spilling out. But Misha is an optimist.
- Iosilevich. Another 15 years or so. So what? In fifteen years all the people mentioned in the investigation will still be alive. Maybe sooner. And then a lot of interesting things will come up. There will be investigations of what happened.
- Kuznetsov. It will be interesting to hear people say — “but I was deceived, I believed in the wrong thing”.
- Iosilevich. “I was just following orders”.
8 September. A conversation with the chairwoman of OIK No.30
- Andreeva. We've written everything to you.
- We've come to place on record the fact that you are refusing to provide…
- We gave you all the information.
- Your answer states that “we will tell you nothing”, only a certain circle of persons, namely — Anna Eduardovna Stepanova.
- Yes.
Anna Eduardovna has already been given every answer, in courts of three instances no less.
- I see.
- We won't tell her anything else. Everything was examined in the courts. All the rest of the information is “an old lady on a bench said so”, it means nothing. All the answers have been given. What else do you want to hear from me?
- We came to you to hear your point of view on what happened.
- I've explained my point of view to you.
- So far you've explained that you're not going to answer anything. And that's not in your interests. We will publish what Stepanova has provided. Some members of the commission voiced the opinion that everything was lawful. Here is Natalya Timofeeva present, she said that everything was honest, without pressure, according to the law. All as it should be. And, following her own version, we say to you: “then show us those documents that came from the FMS. And the ones you sent there.”
- I'm telling you once again, all those documents were in court.
- So show them to us, to confirm your own version.
- I'm not going to show you anything, because all of it was confirmed in court. We submitted it to the court. We're not obliged to show it to you.
- Fine, don't show us. Then we'll proceed on the basis that you're hiding something.
- We're hiding nothing. All the information was in court. Everything was shown, the court examined it. The representatives in court saw everything.
- But the documents aren't in the case file. For some reason you didn't leave copies of the enquiries there.
- Everything is there in court. I don't know where they put it…
- Well then show us now.
- We submitted everything, the enquiries, it's all there.
- The enquiries turned out not to be in the case materials.
- It's all there.
- And what's the problem with simply letting us look at them?
- We have no right, there are personal data there.
- We won't publish them. There are a great many questions, and we'd examine them together with you.
- Everything is in court.
- The originals were seen there, during the hearing. But for some reason no copies remained in the case materials.
- Then those are questions for the judge.
- Nowhere is there an enquiry or a copy of one — in what form the enquiry was sent to the UFMS, and why such an answer came back. We'd like to compare — was it the right data that was sent there? There's a suspicion that it wasn't in the proper form.
- Make an enquiry to the UFMS. What do you want to see there?
We submitted everything to the court. We're not obliged to submit anything more to anyone. Do you understand? We're not obliged to provide anything more to anyone. All the questions have been examined by the court.
- The first enquiry contained 14 signatures, and the second enquiry contained two more, correct?
- That's right.
- That's right. Our question is: why were the signatures checked in two stages — 14 the first time, 2 the second? And that enquiry travelled there and back somehow very fast.
- Am I to say it all over again? Listen to the recording.
- Yes, we've heard it. Now prove it.
- Prove what?
- Show the documents.
- We're not obliged to consider complaints at all, since they've been considered by the court.
- We're trying to get to the bottom of it. And on that side they help us — they give us documents, copies. And on your side? We want you to confirm your version with some papers. That would be very useful to us.
- Who are you? Just who are you? You're interested? Well, I'm not interested. Everything has already been done. That's enough, enough talking about it.
- And what do you think yourself? That everything was done correctly, according to the law?
- We did everything correctly, according to the law. And in general, we gave so many explanations that for the next elections she'll be able to prepare a package of documents — it couldn't be better. To stand in elections and bring in a package of documents, you have to at least read the law. What's written in it. From the outset she brought in the wrong documents. On that one point alone, without even checking them, she could have been removed.
- I see.
- We even went so far as to check them. That's the reason for this whole conversation. That's all now.
- Then why are you driving us out and refusing to back up this version of yours with papers?
- I'm not going to confirm anything. I've already said: the questions were examined in court. We submitted everything to the court. I have no further wish to talk about this.
- All right, thank you.
Oddities at the city election commission
The district election commissions send the Moderator of the city election commission's website a notification that they have taken such-and-such a decision. The last day for Anna Stepanova to file complaints was last Sunday. She went — and nobody lets her into the city election commission. It turns out they had suddenly changed their working hours, but had in no way reflected this on the website. And then, after the fact, on that very Sunday, they replaced the schedule on the site.
Since the court did not discuss the situation with the Federal Migration Service requests in detail, Anna Stepanova filed a complaint with the city electoral commission. And the city electoral commission, given that a court ruling exists, refuses to consider the multiple problems with the registration.
The legal finale
Courts of various levels in the region never overturned the decision of District Electoral Commission No. 30 to remove Anna Stepanova from the election. Tellingly, not one of them, in hearing the case, touched on the core substance of the objections to the electoral commission's methods put forward by the candidate's lawyers, focusing instead on the most formal possible review.
This is interesting
|
|
Judges under investigation will be transported under guard separately from other detainees and fed along the way. The Ministry of Justice has drafted an order approving the procedure for escorting convicts and detainees along scheduled routes by special units of the penal system. The document has been published on the unified state portal for draft legal acts. |
|
Why a state may apply rights unevenly
Inequality, though denied by formal social ethics, in practice flourishes luxuriantly precisely in those societies built on elaborate ethical constructs presented as "nationwide values".
Even before states appeared, different population groups were constantly moving about the planet, pushing one another aside with varying degrees of aggression. It is curious that war was only the "tip of the iceberg" of such displacement. The remaining parts were created by inequality. Members of one's own community were proclaimed bearers of unique "alpha traits", "symbols of leadership". Other ethnic, social and professional groups were forced to adjust to these criteria, losing their natural effectiveness, or to put up with secondary roles in society.
The states that appeared later began to "work" with these classic human tricks in different ways. Decentralized entities usually take a tolerant approach to the existence of various models of leadership, trying to follow the most successful ones. Centralized ones try where possible to "mix" the different groups, forming a "single" standard of success, while allowing that model to evolve actively. The greatest problem shows up in stagnant, monarchical, centralized societies. Possessing a narrow pool of "great rulers" who concentrate most of the resources and power, the states that form as a superstructure over such societies try as far as possible to prop up the ruling group's model of success.
Alongside that group's professional, moral and sometimes physical degradation, the model of leadership degenerates. The state discredits itself more and more as it strains to prop that model up. How is it to be done? The simplest way is to "throw a spanner in the works" of representatives of other groups and to create hothouse conditions for one's own. The irony is that this only intensifies the degradation of the old elite and the growth of the opposition. A vivid example is the society of the Roman Empire in the late stages of its existence: the Romans discredited everything they could reach, and the barbarians came to be regarded as bearers of a simple, crude, but positive morality.
What does the Russian electoral system have to do with it?
The early elections — back under the "first president First President Yeltsin" — showed low support for the government's economic and social initiatives, after which the "administrative resource" came to be used lavishly. Following the rise to power of a man out of the KGB bureaucracy, using the same mechanisms and steadily strengthening them, a "single" party took shape in the country, configured on the ancient principle of holding local elites hostage at a centralized court. To get into its influential part, one has to demonstrate survivability "in the real environment" of Russia's essentially strange post-imperial economy, and to accept the common slogans and formal principles. That is followed by the granting of power on the principle of indulgence for everything except crimes against other members of the influential pool.
Given the great servility of the lower and middle ranks of the state apparatus in the European part of Russia, grown out of the traditions of serfdom and then the purges, its combination with elite figures living to the rhythm of "the most successful predators" gave the richest soil for mechanisms of arbitrary rule, draped in complex ethical and patriotic constructs and regarding the law as a format that constrains less successful forms of life and is not meant to be obeyed by "the powers that be" and "representatives of the System".
Next the ancient, pre-state mechanism of displacement switches on by itself, as the "elites" begin to fight for a monopoly interpretation of what leadership means and for forcing socially, value-wise and ethnically different strata of the population to "play by our rules". It is no surprise that the deepening degradation of the centralized elite and the growing popularity of the opposition are accompanied by accusations of a lack of patriotism and by propagandistic manipulations around questions of ethics, which in essence make it possible to interpret any topic pharisaically in whatever direction the interpreter needs.
What becomes most important is proving that activism of any kind not included in the elite is an unsuccessful phenomenon. There appears both an extremely disproportionate distribution of resources and the creation of a succession of obstacles to any opportunity to broadcast the values of alternative models of leadership. Especially in politics, which can quickly change the "alpha models".
See also
Accounts of this situation on other sites
"you have your laws, we have ours" - a note by Sergey Sokolov