Better to think than talk – Kommersant

The Expert Institute for Social Research (EISI) celebrated the Day of Russian Parliamentarism, celebrated on April 27, with a thematic round table. The participants in the discussion did not skimp on compliments and even found a plus in the name of the Russian parliament: after all, the Duma is from the word “think”, and not from the French parler – “to speak”. The only party member at the event was United Russia Daria Lantratova, who assured that parties in the Duma are not fighting for power, but are striving for business, results and maximum consolidation. True, representatives of other parties interviewed by Kommersant were not completely satisfied with the state of Russian parliamentarism.

The EISI round table dedicated to the memorable date was called “Russian Parliamentarism: Traditions, Present and Future”. For the most part, experts participated in the discussion, and Senator Daria Lantratova, Deputy Secretary of the General Council of United Russia (ER), spoke on behalf of the parliamentarians themselves.

Associate Professor of the Department of Political Analysis of the Faculty of Public Administration of Moscow State University Alexander Konkov began by stating that parliamentarism for Russia is a well-established and ancient tradition: he described the practice of veche in Novgorod and Pskov as “antique democracy on domestic soil.” Without delving into commonalities with other countries, Mr. Konkov immediately turned to the differences. So, he drew attention to the fact that the word “parliament”, in fact, does not correspond to the Russian tradition: such terms as “sobornost” and “Duma” proper are more typical for us. “If the word “parliament” comes from the concept of parler – “to speak”, then the Duma is more likely from another – “to think”. Not to express and articulate, not to send to the external environment, but first of all to the internal search, ”the political scientist explained.

The moderator of the round table, director of the Institute of Recent States, Alexei Martynov, also took part in the discussion, and also with a reference to history. In his opinion, in the early 1990s, the Russian parliament was a parallel center of power, and now it has moved into its best stage. “Today, the Russian parliament symbolizes and demonstrates the optimal model of a well-balanced combination of representative and legislative power. Performs an advisory, legislative function. It carries out political party representation, as well as territorial and ethno-territorial representation,” the expert proclaimed. And just in case, he reminded that there are as many as five parties in the Duma: “The whole palette is presented.”

Director General of the Institute for Regional Problems Natalya Lindigrin added that the effectiveness of the Russian model of parliamentarism is also enhanced by its regional aspect. And the deputy director of the Institute of History and Politics of the Moscow State Pedagogical University, Vladimir Shapovalov, recalled that in 1612-1613 it was the zemstvo offices that recreated Russian statehood.

Political scientist Pavel Sklyanchuk, in turn, divided the current State Duma deputies into “warriors”, “human rights activists” and “political officers”. He attributed the United Russia party Vitaly Milonov to the first type: “Don’t look at his appearance. He is always at the forefront.” The second type, according to the expert, is symbolized by United Russia Artem Metelev and the communist Nina Ostanina, and the third, as expected, by members of the Duma Committee on Defense, who “burn with napalm”.

Finally, Daria Lantratova said that although the struggle for power is traditionally considered the goal of parties, in Russia everything is arranged somewhat differently. “The business, the result, the maximum consolidation come to the fore,” she assured. According to the senator, our parliamentarism is based on primordially Russian cultural principles and mentality, which is characterized by “complicity, compassion, help, protection.” “A parliamentarian cannot hide in his office, his work cannot be limited by the rules of any committee. He must help. This is a hallmark of today’s parliamentarian,” United Russia concluded.

The correspondent of Kommersant asked the participants of the round table why there were no representatives of other parliamentary parties at the discussion of parliamentarism. Aleksey Martynov explained that purely technical difficulties were to blame: “Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, our deputies are so busy that many did not manage to take part … Now is not a plenary week, everything is in business – who is at the front, who is in the regions “. And Alexander Konkov noted that linking parliamentarism only with parliament is “narrowing the problem field”.

Meanwhile, among the representatives of the Duma opposition interviewed by Kommersant, their opinions about modern Russian parliamentarism turned out to be very ambiguous.

Thus, the first deputy head of the Communist Party faction in the State Duma, Nikolai Kolomeytsev, believes that our parliamentarism can be described in one word – “managed.” Nikolai Novichkov (“A Just Russia — For Truth”), on the contrary, believes that parliamentarism in Russia is mature, and the next step for it will be the formation of a coalition government: “Of course, in cooperation with the presidential government, but we adopted amendments to the Constitution, which established that the government is formed with the participation of the Duma. Let’s take the next step.” According to the first deputy chairman of the LDPR faction, Yaroslav Nilov, the state of Russian parliamentarism “leaves much to be desired”: “The question of trust is important. We need to see how many voters go to vote. If less than 50% come to the elections, then we understand that representation is not important for the second half of our society, and this is wrong.” Because of this, the modern parliament does not reflect the interests of all social groups, the deputy believes. And the leader of the New People faction, Aleksey Nechaev, even saw in the Russian parliament a bias towards “certain classes” – for example, employees of budgetary institutions and officials. “At the same time, there are very few young people, scientists, entrepreneurs and industrialists in parliaments. “Techies”, and especially specialists in the “figure” – a few. Because of this, the representative function of parliamentarism is not fully realized today,” Mr. Nechaev emphasized.

Andrey Vinokurov, Ksenia Veretennikova