The State Duma is preparing seven bills on the rights of mobilized: whether to wait for the correction of excesses

Adopted back in 1997, the law “On mobilization and mobilization preparation” declares that mobilization “may be general or partial.” And the changes introduced in July 2022 and little noticed then make it possible to determine “a set of measures taken when declaring general or partial mobilization”, not only by law, but also by presidential decrees, government decisions and “other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation”. This means that in very many cases it is impossible to read the law and understand what and who exactly to prepare for in this situation, especially since it often refers to documents with limited access or even secret ones. After September 21, adjustments to the criteria for partial mobilization were made by decrees of Vladimir Putin (for example, a delay was first established for students in daytime and evening departments of state educational institutions, and then for students in private educational institutions with state accreditation, and graduate students). And the decisions of the government and the relevant department determined, say, the deferment criteria for IT specialists …

But even initiatives on a sore subject for society are submitted to the State Duma one after another – at the moment there are already seven of them.

The most conceptually coherent and elaborated is the one signed by a group of deputies from the LDPR faction, headed by its leader Leonid Slutsky, and senators from the party. “The lack of legally established clear criteria for the implementation of partial mobilization led to the fact that the military registration and enlistment offices began to apply the norms of the Federal Law on deferment established for general mobilization. On the ground, summonses began to be sent en masse, trying to reach as many men as possible, including those who did not serve and never held weapons in their hands, fathers of many children, people with chronic diseases, people over military age, students, key competent workers, which the business is sustained. This approach to partial mobilization, which does not comply with the instructions of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the Minister of Defense, has led to serious social tension,” the explanatory note says.

The authors propose to supplement the law “On mobilization …” with a special article on partial mobilization. In such cases, taking away only citizens who have previously served in the military is the first thing. And the list of delays to establish a wider than the mobilization of the general. Do not take privates and sergeants over the age of 35, junior officers over 50 years old, and senior officers over 55 years old, do not take those who have not four or more dependents, as now, but three or more children under the age of 16 years, the only sons of single parents, sons and brothers who died in military service. Citizens who have received a deferment from partial mobilization should not receive special permission to leave their place of residence … Etc., etc.

“The early adoption of this bill will reduce social tension in the country, eliminate abuses on the ground, support the economy and business, raise the authority of the government and restore confidence in it,” the deputies believe. However, one of them, the head of the Duma Committee on Labor and Social Policy, Yaroslav Nilov, answered the question of “MK” about whether the bill had been previously agreed with the government and the Kremlin, he answered “this is our initiative”, which means “no, not agreed”.

“The bill looks too liberal, and therefore impassable,” Pavel Chikov, a well-known human rights lawyer, assessed its chances in his telegram channel…

Deputies from the “SR” faction propose only point changes. The first of them involves the inclusion in the general list of deferrals from the call for mobilization also of parents (adoptive parents) or guardians (trustees) who care for a disabled child under the age of 18 or for a disabled child at any age, but only the first group. “In families with a child with a disability or disabled since childhood, the mother is predominantly busy with care, sometimes around the clock, and the father not only works to provide for the needs of the child and the family, but also provides physical assistance in care that cannot be handled by the mother,” says in the explanatory note to this bill.

And the second, signed by faction leader Sergei Mironov and his colleague Dmitry Gusev, proposes to provide mobilized citizens who have returned home “the preferential right to employment in state bodies, local governments or state organizations.” Thus, it is a question of some kind of privilege. “Such people have a different level of responsibility for the fate of the Motherland, a higher level of patriotism. They will be able to replace inefficient officials, because they will work with full dedication and with a different attitude,” Mr. Mironov said the other day. He seems to believe that even the absence of the competencies needed for a particular bureaucratic position is better than their presence in the absence of combat experience.

The government’s opinion on the “SR” initiatives is unknown – no official feedback has yet been received. The same can be said for all the other initiatives listed below.

The faction of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, almost the very first, began to write bills “about mobilization.” The most famous of them is the one that was introduced on September 24, “about a one-time payment of 300 thousand to each mobilized.” The document lists many more different benefits, but this one especially fell on the hearts of many Russians, and many even believed that the issue had already been resolved positively.

But it’s not really like that – alas.

Communists Nina Ostanina, Maria Drobot and Aleksey Kiriyenko, and Tatyana Larionova from ER proceeded from the correct premise: the authorities of different regions announce different amounts of lump-sum benefits to the mobilized, in poor regions there may not be money for additional payments, and not entirely fair, to put it mildly, when citizens equally risking their lives have various kinds of social guarantees. The authors wanted to assign the payment of such benefits to the federal budget. How much money might be needed was not specified in the financial and economic justification: they say that now the draft budget for 2023-25 ​​is being discussed in the State Duma, and all these issues can be resolved along the way.

Bills that require additional budget expenditures must be submitted to the State Duma in the presence of an official government opinion prepared by the Ministry of Finance. There was no such conclusion. In the State Duma, the authors were not without reason scolded for populism, after which they withdrew the bill on September 29. Of which the general public was not particularly informed, of course.

Moreover, the identical twin brother of the withdrawn bill was again submitted to the State Duma! But already by some communists, without the participation of Mrs. Larionova. There is practically no hope for its adoption. Even if we assume that in the end they really will mobilize about 300 thousand, and not more, we are talking about an amount of about a trillion rubles.

Another bill of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation looks much more elaborate – on the deferral of mobilization for citizens with three children under the age of 18, and if the child is a full-time student at a university – up to 23 years. The topic was first raised at the plenary session of the State Duma on September 27 by communist Andrei Alekhin. He stated that “current legislation” considers large families with three children or more, and suggested that the government be asked to solve the problem. A protocol order of approximately the same content, which was also signed by Oleg Smolin (KPRF), was supported by the entire chamber. At the same time, the head of the Committee on Family, Women and Children, Nina Ostanina, reminded her colleagues that “unfortunately, there is no current legislation on this issue”: there is no concept of “large family” in any federal law, each region has its own approaches. There is, however, still not canceled the decree of Boris Yeltsin of 1992, which calls a large family just a family with three or more children. Ms. Ostanina acknowledged that deputies and hotlines receive a lot of questions on this topic, and she has already turned to the head of the Main Organizational and Mobilization Directorate of the General Staff “in order, perhaps, to create some kind of unified monitoring commission with the participation of representatives of our committee and the Defense Committee “…

Deputies from the “New People” faction began to show legislative activity in the “mobilization” field only in recent days. Their first proposal, which was signed by Sardana Avksentyeva, Maxim Gulin and Vladislav Davankov, is to expand the composition of the regional draft commissions involved in mobilization through the commissioners for human rights of this constituent entity of the Russian Federation and representatives of political parties represented in the local parliament. According to the authors, this will help to “correct the injustice committed against a person and restore the rights violated by state bodies, local governments.”

Another draft law, signed by Ms. Avksentieva and Mr. Gulin, is designed to resolve the legal conflict around alternative civilian service – or rather, around the possibility of a mobilized person to demand that he be sent not to a combat zone, but to one not related to the use of weapons, but necessary for the army and society work. During conscription, citizens of certain categories (convinced pacifists, for example) have such a right granted to them by the Constitution and enshrined in a special law. But in the law “On mobilization …” there is not a word about him. The deputies propose to fill the gap and stipulate that those mobilized for alternative service can be used, among other things, “to ensure the security of educational organizations,” because municipalities often do not have the funds to protect schools, colleges and kindergartens …